The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

Originally posted by hawkiye

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!

And when the external electrical current goes away?

What keeps the ferromagnetic material producing the magnetic field?

I think you didn't even understand the objection. [In actual physics it is because electrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment and in ferromagnetic materials there is a net spin imbalance because of exchange interactions]


The idea of the "electric sun" """theory""" is preposterous to entertain when scientists have directly observed solar neutrinos. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory results (and understanding of neutrino oscillations) makes it "case closed". There is direct quantitative correlation between known facts of nuclear fusion (lab generated cross sections) and the neutrino flux and energy distribution observers.

Neutrinos are generated by nuclear reactions.

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... 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.

WTF?

The Sun very big. Sunspots are near the surface. In actual scientific stellar models fusion only takes place in the core which has a rather small radius compared to the overall radius of the Sun.

Main sequence star]


No scientist denies anything about the complex plasma physics involved in stars, but nuclear fusion is essential.

How else do you explain other facts like everything else in the H-R diagram?

It is truly remarkable that we can make substantial and non-trivial verified predictions about stupendously distant and huge objects in the galaxy using our own experiments and brains.

The explanation of all these observations, derived from first principles and laboratory-tested facts of thermodynamics and nuclear physics is the central triumph of 20th century astrophysics.

Originally posted by mbkennel
I think you didn't even understand the objection. [In actual physics it is because electrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment and in ferromagnetic materials there is a net spin imbalance because of exchange interactions]

Thanks, I'm glad SOMEBODY understood the objection!

The idea of the "electric sun" """theory""" is preposterous to entertain when scientists have directly observed solar neutrinos. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory results (and understanding of neutrino oscillations) makes it "case closed". There is direct quantitative correlation between known facts of nuclear fusion (lab generated cross sections) and the neutrino flux and energy distribution observers.

Neutrinos are generated by nuclear reactions.

An excellent point! The only reason I didn't make a bigger deal out of this is that there are a spectrum of electric sun beliefs ranging from a belief that there's no fusion at all, to a belief that the sun's power comes partly from fusion and partly from electrical inflows. The neutrino observations would seem to shatter the idea that there's no fusion at all in the sun, but to prove it's not powered by current inflows from outside our solar system, I was trying to concentrate on the absence of any evidence for those. Don Scott agrees the neutrinos come from fusion, but he bizarrely claims the fusion is happening in the double layer outside the sun, and not inside the sun (maybe he should have studied some physics in addition to electrical engineering):

www.electric-cosmos.org...

The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). ...

You and I probably understand why that's not very logical, but since Scott agrees there's no evidence for current inflows into the sun I thought it's just easier to point out Don Scott's admission for the lack of evidence for his theory (in the form of current inflows from outside the solar system), than it is to point out why fusion in the core seems much more likely than fusion outside the sun to people that apparently don't have a good grasp of physics.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There are no magnetic fields without some sort of electric current causing an atomic dipole moment. Mainstream and EU scientist agree on this. Materials that are "permanent magnets" have a molecular matrix that allows for the atoms/molecules in the matrix to line up and lock as mini electrostatic dipoles. Those materials become magnetized when a strong electric current forces the atomic dipole condition or when "stroked" with another magnet to initiate the alignment. Hence the creation of fridge magnets still depends on electrical currents at some point in the process.

Lodestone: Natures only permanent magnet-what it is and how it gets charged
Wasilewski, Peter; Kletetschka, Günther
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 26, Issue 15, p. 2275-2278

Magnetite and Titanomagnetite exhibit magnetic properties which are attributable to the micro-structures developed during oxidation and exsolution: All magnetite iron ores which are lodestones contain maghemite. These lodestones have Hc between 10 and 30 mT, SIRM between 8 and 18 Am2kg1, and RI between 0.10 and 0.26. Magnetite, titanomagnetite and metals have REM values (ratio of NRM to SIRM) >0.1) can be verified as not to be due to contamination by man and does not contain MD hematite then the rock has LRM (lightning remanent magnetization). The magnetic field associated with lightning can be revealed from an isothermal remanent acquisition (RA) curve.
adsabs.harvard.edu...

Hence all magnetic fields require electrical current for creation. And so called permanent magnets have electrical current on a subatomic level to maintain their magnetic alignment for a long time.

Also, "permanent magnet" is somewhat of a misnomer. All magnets slowly loose their atomic dipole alignment and the strength of their magnetic fields gradually decreases accordingly unless maintained by a strong enough electric current. Also, the shock of an impact, like a hammer blow, can interfere with the atomic dipole and cause demagnetizing of the magnet. Drop one of those fridge magnets too many times and it won't stick so good anymore. Heat also destroys the alignment.

More later...

damn double posts....

reply to post by mbkennel

The idea of the "electric sun" """theory""" is preposterous to entertain when scientists have directly observed solar neutrinos. The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory results (and understanding of neutrino oscillations) makes it "case closed". There is direct quantitative correlation between known facts of nuclear fusion (lab generated cross sections) and the neutrino flux and energy distribution observers.

Neutrinos are generated by nuclear reactions.

Sorry no sale on the "case closed" attempt

But neutrino metamorphosis is not an “inescapable conclusion.” It is confirmatory bias with bells on! Conflicting evidence about the source region of the neutrinos is being ignored. There have been several reports of a correlation between the neutrino count, the sunspot number and solar wind strength. These are solar surface effects that should have no connection with what is going on in the Sun’s core, where the hidden energy of the nuclear furnace is supposed to take hundreds of thousands of years to "leak out" to the surface.

The electric star model suggests a simpler explanation of solar neutrino observations. The Sun produces all of the neutrino flavors on the surface in more complex nuclear reactions than mere heat and pressure allows. The nuclear reactions are ignited by the plasma pinch effect in the gigantic electrical discharges that cover the star and produce starlight. Ironically, it is the same phenomenon as that employed in some laboratories attempting to mimic the Sun's energy production! In this model, the connection between neutrino count, sunspot number and solar wind is expected, because the driver for them all is the same - galactic electrical power.

………………….

The second serious challenge to the standard solar model comes from solar oscillations. In the 1970’s, the Sun was unexpectedly found to ring like a bell. In 1976 Severny, Kotov & Tsap discovered a dominant 160-minute ringing mode of the Sun. They wrote, "The simplest interpretation is that we observed purely radial pulsations. The most striking fact is that the observed period is almost precisely... the value if the Sun were to be an homogeneous sphere. ... We have investigated two possible solutions to this dilemma. The first alternative is that nuclear... reactions are not responsible for energy generation in the Sun. Such a conclusion, although rather extravagant, is quite consistent with the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux from the Sun, and with the observed abundance of Li and Be in the solar atmosphere."

The second alternative involved force fitting the data to the standard solar model by assuming that the oscillations were not simply radial but of a more complicated form. However, the implications were so disturbing for theorists that the work was repeated in various locations and all sources of error considered. The result in 1981 was that the original oscillation was found to be the highest peak in the power spectrum, and "one may conclude that 160-min oscillation shows mostly radial motion." In reporting the status of solar oscillation observations in 1991 in "Solar Interior and Atmosphere", F. Hill et al mention the 160-minute oscillation without any reference to the implied homogeneous Sun. Rather, they spend half a page casting suspicion on the extensive observations and attempting to minimize its significance. The reason is only thinly veiled; "Additional doubt comes from the difficulty of theoretically describing the nature of the oscillation. ...". The authors were merely behaving with the usual confirmatory bias.

The question of what is ringing the stellar bell has not been satisfactorily answered. It should be noted that the size of an electric star is determined by the degree of electric stress it suffers. And since the electric Sun forms part of a galactic circuit, it will exhibit resonant effects. The Sun is an electric bell as well as an electric light! It seems particularly significant that the 160-minute oscillation also appears with high statistical significance in the solar intensity, infra-red, radio and radio polarization (connected with the solar magnetic field). All of these effects are to be expected in an electric star model because they are driven by the same resonant electrical power circuit

www.holoscience.com...

There are so many strawmen and misunderstandings in this thread it would be too great and too tedious a task too correct them.

If you wish to falsify the theory you better have a reasonable grasp of it and it's variations.

If any definitive evidence is available be sure to pop over to the thunderbolts forum with it, I'm sure they would love to know.

If the Sun is powered externally by an electrical charge in the form of plasma, we don't we see this charge? such a thing has never been observed.

Originally posted by masterp
If the Sun is powered externally by an electrical charge in the form of plasma, we don't we see this charge? such a thing has never been observed.

Brownian inflow would be undetectable by current space based instruments.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by masterp
If the Sun is powered externally by an electrical charge in the form of plasma, we don't we see this charge? such a thing has never been observed.

Brownian inflow would be undetectable by current space based instruments.

Why is it be undetectable? isn't it an electrical charge? it should even be visible with naked eyes, from the charge of the particles around the Sun.

Originally posted by masterp

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Brownian inflow would be undetectable by current space based instruments.

Why is it be undetectable? isn't it an electrical charge? it should even be visible with naked eyes, from the charge of the particles around the Sun.

I'm not saying I believe the claim, but my understanding is, let's say 1,000 electrons leave the sun in a solar wind, and 10 electrons find their way into the sun from brownian motion (not a completely impossible notion).

Then an attempt to measure the flow of electrons might only show the net movement of 990 electrons leaving the sun, and the 10 that entered the sun because of brownian motion wouldn't register separately (hence, undetectable). If that's the claim, it's plausible up to that point, but where it falls apart is claiming that somehow the 10 electrons that entered the sun through brownian motion power the sun. The problem is, you've still got a net outflow of 990 electrons.

So even if there's an inflow of electrons into the sun due to brownian motion (I don't know if there is or not), the magnitude of the outflow dwarfs the magnitude of the inflow so all we see is a net outflow.

An analogy of this claim to me would be, the sun is like a banking account that has $10,000 in it. And the account earns $10 a month in interest (like an inflow due to brownian motion), and you're withdrawing $1,000 a month from the account (equivalent to the solar wind taking electrons away from the sun in this analogy).

In this analogy, the brownian motion claim seems to me like saying the $10 a month in interest will make the account grow larger (or provide power for the sun), when in fact the account is seeing a net loss of $990 a month (just as the sun is seeing a net loss of electrons, that's what we measure).

So if the interest wasn't reported separately, and all you saw was $990 flowing out of the account each month, you might not have any way of knowing that the $990 results from a $1000 withdrawal and a $10 deposit from interest. This is why we can't measure the $10, all we can see is the $990 flowing out in that analogy.

But if someone claims that $10 could make the bank account grow (which is like the brownian motion claim), yes maybe it could, if it weren't for all the other stuff going on which overwhelms it, which is what we measure. But this is why the claim doesn't make any sense, if the stuff we measure overwhelms it, it's the dominant effect, then it seems kind of silly to claim the $10 in interest will make the account grow larger, when all we measure is $990 leaving the account each month (meaning a net outflow of electrons).

This is paper is from outside of the EU and PC circles.

Abstract. The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in
numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is ~3 x 10^9 A. The only way to fulfil the electric
current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of eld- aligned currents at the polar region
of the Sun. Thus, the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as
~4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is B ~ 5 x 10^−6 T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic
magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any treatment of the solar magnetic field generation should
take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun.

csem.engin.umich.edu...

Those familiar with Afviens model can instantly see the similarity.
Also it should be known that Alfvien never insisted on a completely external power source.

As for comparison in models, well there is absolutely no evidence for nuclear reactions at the core of the sun, in fact everything contradicts it. The inverse temperature gradient, the photoshere granulation, the neutrino problem (yes it's still a problem), the p-modes ringing from the sun etc.... all of these problems disapear in the electric model.

I'd also like to post this in support of Alfien circuit model.

Strong depletions in solar wind electron halo distribution functions, centered on and roughly symmetric about 90° pitch angle, are present in at least 10% of data obtained by the Los Alamos SWEPAM experiment on the ACE spacecraft. Sunward‐directed conics are also present in the electron data, occur in conjunction with the 90° depletions, but are less common than depletions. We suggest that on open field lines both depletions and conics arise from focusing and mirroring effects associated with field line connection to magnetic field enhancements farther out in the heliosphere. The focusing and mirroring produces field‐aligned, counterstreaming fluxes of suprathermal electrons somewhat similar to that observed on closed field lines. Our observations provide strong evidence that the antisunward‐directed portion of the electron halo on open field lines at times results primarily from mirroring of back scattered strahl and/or shock‐heated electrons from far out in the heliosphere.

www.agu.org...
There's a little bit of assumption there, but it matches Alfviens model. I believe the electron halo is the condensing of the drift current collecting around the star (my opinion) the evidence is mounting. In light of this, consider this.

From the Ibex results. Only one model explains it.
www.holoscience.com...

As i've mentioned and even Proffesor Scott has explained, yes it is the most speculative part of the theory.
However the lines of evidence point in this direction, and some relatively recent results tend to support it.
I maintain that it is just as speculative as the nuclear core theory. In fact in light of recent discoveries like the above things are shaping up quite well.

If anyone can explain some of the problems surrounding the nuclear core hypothesis then well you might be up for a noble prize. The electric model suffers none of the problems of the nuclear model save the much controversial power source. Perhaps a comparitive analasys of the models?

People see the limit of the Sun as a circle in the sky, When in fact our panet and all the others are inside of it's atmosphere so to speak. The Sun and it's effects reach out to imaginable size and volume. Guess what? we have by no means even come close to mapping the currents even in nearby space. It was only recently that the flux ropes (birkeland currents) were discovered powering the aurora of earth, hmm how many volts was that?

I suspect that the same thing happens on the scale of the heliosphere and the galactic fillaments.

Got a ways to go yet, but while everyone is counting electrons, remember the problems of the standard theory that are irrational in that frame work yet absolutely expected in an electric model.

The cool thing is, that mechanism for the sun, Alfviens homopolar motor idea (differential rotation in the sun expalined!), appllies to galactic structure as well, perhaps no need for dark matter or dark energy after all? It explains the jets from AGN resonably through known physics, eek! no black holes either!

The universe turns out to be elegantly simple and efficient, it resonates even with biological systems, the same paterns of the circuitry even on a cellular level. It extends into all things fractally as you'd expect it should.

Originally posted by squiz
As for comparison in models, well there is absolutely no evidence for nuclear reactions at the core of the sun, in fact everything contradicts it. The inverse temperature gradient, the photoshere granulation, the neutrino problem (yes it's still a problem), the p-modes ringing from the sun etc.... all of these problems disapear in the electric model.

Neutrinos:

en.wikipedia.org...

The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the Earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics – specifically, neutrino oscillation.

Looks like you are about 10 years behind the curve. There is more science to sweep under the rug than you are capable of accomplishing. So there.

The very fact that we detect solar neutrinos is a pretty damn good evidence that fusion does take place.

As to granulation, I just don't see any magic in that beyond convection and other ways of heat transfer. It's pretty amazing that you parade neutrino deficit (resolved) and granulation (obvious from the start) as a sign of failure of a very solid physics model. Bullcr@p.

Originally posted by squiz

The universe turns out to be elegantly simple and efficient, it resonates even with biological systems, the same paterns of the circuitry even on a cellular level. It extends into all things fractally as you'd expect it should.

Archetypal New Age cr@p. People say "fractals" without having done a basic course in calculus. And oh yeah, "pattern" is actually spelled with double "t".

Yearning for simplicity should not turn into a desire to buy a low quality snake oil.

And, the Universe is not always simple, and it doesn't care if simpletons wish it to be so.

Geez, is this a science forum or a schoolyard? I'll keep it SIMPLE for ya.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the Earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics – specifically, neutrino oscillation.

Looks like you are about 10 years behind the curve. There is more science to sweep under the rug than you are capable of accomplishing. So there.

This has already been addressed, I would add that more recent neutrino oscillation experiments have revealed discrepencies and contradictions which have also lead to the possibility of a fourth type. In short we have a way to go here and this no doubt casts doubt on the validity of the SNO data. There is no quantative data for the rate of oscillation. It happens, but the details are absent, to call it case closed is a little premature. So i'm not sweeping anything under the rug. So There? Really? How old are you?

It's only a problem for nuclear reactions at the core.

The very fact that we detect solar neutrinos is a pretty damn good evidence that fusion does take place.

I'll put in a language you might understand. Well Deeeeerrrr!

As to granulation, I just don't see any magic in that beyond convection and other ways of heat transfer. It's pretty amazing that you parade neutrino deficit (resolved) and granulation (obvious from the start) as a sign of failure of a very solid physics model. Bullcr@p.

The conditions for heat convection resulting in organized structure on the sun exceeds the reynolds number by about a 100 billion or so. So I guess there must be some magic happening.

Your other post is just adhominens and ego petting, childish nonsense. It's the scraping of the bottom of the debate barrel You only confirm my earlier post, critics have very little understanding of the models, the proof is in your above remarks, go and do some research and maybe we can continue.

Originally posted by squiz
Geez, is this a science forum or a schoolyard? I'll keep it SIMPLE for ya.

Please don't hold back. I can handle things that aren't too simple, and I suspect you can't.
And what's up with "for ya"?

This has already been addressed, I would add that more recent neutrino oscillation experiments have revealed discrepencies and contradictions which have also lead to the possibility of a fourth type.

Guess what, these measurements are NOT SIMPLE as much as you crave such comfortable situation. There are solid indications that oscillations exist (and again, how and why this happens is subject to much complexity).

How old are you?

What does it have to do with the topic at hand?

The very fact that we detect solar neutrinos is a pretty damn good evidence that fusion does take place.

I'll put in a language you might understand. Well Deeeeerrrr!

Between inquiries about my age and that jewel of critical thought, it doesn't seem like you offer anything of substance.

Sorry I can't help quoting you again, there is just too much amusement value to let it go:

The universe turns out to be elegantly simple and efficient, it resonates even with biological systems, the same paterns of the circuitry even on a cellular level. It extends into all things fractally as you'd expect it should.

Sure. Universe resonates with biological systems. There is circuitry at the cellular level. Same pattern. And sure fractals explain everything, circuitry and all.

Having written that nonsense, you have the nerve to call people childish? Puh-leeze.

might i chime in with some babblings from a person on the fence of both theories?

could a energy be flowing in, to the sun, cause a nuclear reaction on the surface and create the nutrino's?
seeing as how nasa released a article showing one of their satellites detected a giant gamma "bubble" coming from the center of our galaxy, and lightning on earth creates gamma rays, could it not be electrical in nature? it does not have to be electrons or what not, but something similar to electricity. if gravity is strong enough to hold planets to a star, moons to a planet, etc. how is it that i can override gravity with the electrical impulses in my body? how can small particles fly out from a star that holds giant behemoth planets in a orbit around it?

before you get your panties in a bunch about how i prove no scientific data behind this, no numbers, blah blah blah.

i will refer you to this quote,

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " ~ Nikola Tesla

well what the hell does that have to do with this? i am not saying scientists are wrong for only doing math, but they do base their accepted theories on math formulas with little experimentation. when was the last time they tried to create or measure dark matter or energy? yet it is believed to be there, this from the same scientists that believe if no one was looking at the moon it would disappear. yet to see an experiment on that one.

no one is right or wrong, just lack of experimentation to prove who is right or wrong. just because someone can mathematically prove god exists, does he?

now whats that got to do with blp? i do not know, hell i don't think this relates to what you guys are going on about, might want to start a new thread about this. all i know is arguing science with no experimental results is like arguing if god is real or not. AGAIN i am not saying current widely believed theories are wrong, hell we base all our tech off of it.

do we recreate the process of the sun in our nuclear reactors? or do we just reproduce the outcome?

if this is stupid, i do not blame you as this is just something i have been thinking and needed a place to put it, and you people seem qualified to give some input. i respect you all, so please do the same and no bashing, just give me what you think.

also, i have no backround to support any of this except my own research.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
might i chime in with some babblings from a person on the fence of both theories?

could a energy be flowing in, to the sun, cause a nuclear reaction on the surface and create the nutrino's?

No, it's a completely different ballpark of density. There is not enough matter in the outer layers of the sun to produce enough collisions and fusion events.

And, there is no evidence of energy flowing in. That just can't go undetected, given the scale.

do we recreate the process of the sun in our nuclear reactors? or do we just reproduce the outcome?

With exception of a handful of research fusion reactors (or even some small DIY projects which use electric discharge to produce small number of fusion events) we do not recreate the same reactions because it's FISSION reactors that are used in industry. Opposite of fusion.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " ~ Nikola Tesla

That may be a valid criticism of some scientific fields, one example that comes to mind is string theory to which I think that criticism might apply. To the extent that any string theorists are trying to prove their theory in the LHC, it might not be a valid criticism, but some string theories need a collider billions of times more powerful than the LHC to test them.

if this is stupid, i do not blame you as this is just something i have been thinking and needed a place to put it, and you people seem qualified to give some input. i respect you all, so please do the same and no bashing, just give me what you think.

I definitely wouldn't use the word stupid as you seem like a thoughtful person and an inquiring mind is a sign of intelligence, not stupidity. But I would use the word "uninformed", because if you had any idea how much effort we've put into studying the sun with real instrumentation, you'd realize how misplaced Tesla's assertion is regarding studying the sun (even though it could be a valid criticism of string theorists):

SOHO has revolutionized what we know about the solar atmosphere and violent solar storms produced by the sun

"We were looking for answers to three long-standing problems in solar physics," said Joe Gurman, “the solar neutrino problem, the coronal heating mystery, and the question of what causes solar wind acceleration." Gurman works at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and has been the U.S. project scientist for SOHO since 1998.

Placed into orbit around the L1 Lagrangian point between Earth and the sun, SOHO was able to observe the sun continuously without Earth ever obstructing its view. With its uninterrupted observations, says Gurman, SOHO has significantly helped with all three original questions....

"Every mission stands on the shoulders of the missions that came before it," says Gurman. "Without the success of SOHO we never would have had the opportunity to get even better measurements with STEREO, Hinode, and SDO."

To better inform yourself, there are three more solar observing missions you can enter into google: NASA STEREO, NASA SDO, and JAXA Hinode. Now after googling those and reading about SOHO, do you still think Tesla's claim applies to observation of the sun?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And sure fractals explain everything, circuitry and all.

It kind of makes one wonder why all the world's scientists are still working so hard to solve the mysteries which still edlude us, when all they need to do is say "everything is fractal" and their job is done, that explains everything right? Considering how the definition of the word fractal seems to be ever-expanding to include things that I don't think are truly fractal (coastlines for example are loosely called fractal but I think that's a stretch as are other applications of the word, but you can apply fractal math to coastlines), perhaps just about everything really is fractal.

My response to that is, so what? Saying "everything is fractal" may answer someone else's questions about the universe, but it certainly doesn't answer mine.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Universe resonates with biological systems. There is circuitry at the cellular level. Same pattern.

I thought one of those distant galaxies resembled a giant amoeba. According to "Mr Electric Universe" Don Scott,

IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’

IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’
TB condemns my pointing out that a similarity in appearance of certain objects might indicate they have a common cause, e.g., the Grand Canyon and Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass by lightning strokes. He then goes on to say that Mark Twain “noted how the [Mississippi] river course would change, with no reports of giant electric arcs.”

There are many morphological characteristics of the Grand Canyon that are enigmatic for 'standard' geologists. Different from the Mississippi (and similar to Lichtenberg patterns), it has no delta, it is narrow at both ends, and its tributaries are as deep at their beginning points as they are when they join the main stream; many such tributaries join at right angles to the central valley. And, of course, it is a mile deep. Also, there is the old saying: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck……."

Well based on the "looks like a duck" science, if the galaxy looks like a giant amoeba, I guess that must be what it is. Gee that was simple! And I thought science was hard?

Now I don't know why mostly smart people become scientists if anybody can do science like that? :bnghd:

With exception of a handful of research fusion reactors (or even some small DIY projects which use electric discharge to produce small number of fusion events) we do not recreate the same reactions because it's FISSION reactors that are used in industry. Opposite of fusion.

i knew i would forget a detail. thank you, sir. now not to step on toes, what are your thoughts on math replacing experiment? thats the real one i would like to hear about. i know it is used in place of experiment when you cant do an experiment (black holes), but does this make it safe to assume it to be true?

i appreciate your input, namely you buddasystem, as you seem to have a formal education in such things. i have yet to find a place that discusses these things. i ask because it feels to me we are stuck in a copernicus/gallileo type era dominated by math with no experimentation, at least according to scientific methods. an example would be the colliders as i see they just keep pushing the same theory and yet to get what they are looking for. though they have given us a wealth of information. but as far as i know, they have proven exsistence of all force particles except the gravitron. reading on their page they seem to be trying to get nature to fit within our idea of how things work. should it not be the opposite?

if you know of any sites that explain these things please post as i can not find too many that are peer reviewed or discussed by scientists. that arxiv site is good but none of those papers are peer reviewed. especially ones that deal with science itself today.

response to Arbitrageur
i actually watch soho and sdo daily, didnt know about the other though, will check that out. i say yes and no to tesla's quote. while sdo and soho are experiments of our theories, what they also show we know nothing about the nature of the sun as we have proven to be true. why does the sun seems to like shooting flares at comets/asteroids that come close. how about that magnetic flux tube that goes from the sun to the earth. how are these magnetic fields even produced without some type of electrical type energy flow? if they are frozen into the plasma how is it they can speed around the sun and create giant rifts in the plasma of the sun? should it not be stationary or at least move according the rotation and movement of the sun through the galaxy? just because we can not see the energy flow going into the sun with these tools, does not mean it is not there. i like to think about what we would see if we pointed the wise instruments at the sun or other high energy detectors at it. if we have please put a link as that greatly intrigues me.

also, eu theory accounts for those mysteries of the sun. which is why i say it could be both. from looking at the images of the non true color satellite pics, it would seem there is more then gravity playing a role in the formation of everything beyond sub atomic.

my point in all this is, why stick to one theory? we should try all theories then rule them out, not because it goes against what we believe to be true and rakes in the doe.