It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 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!
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.
Thanks, I'm glad SOMEBODY understood the objection!
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]
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):
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.
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.
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). ...
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Geez, is this a science forum or a schoolyard? I'll keep it SIMPLE 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.
How old are you?
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!
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 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?
do we recreate the process of the sun in our nuclear reactors? or do we just reproduce the outcome?
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.
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
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):
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.
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?
"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."
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.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
And sure fractals explain everything, circuitry and all.
I thought one of those distant galaxies resembled a giant amoeba. According to "Mr Electric Universe" Don Scott,
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Universe resonates with biological systems. There is circuitry at the cellular level. Same pattern.
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?
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……."
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.