The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What really cracks me up about "everything is fractal" and how some "circuitry" on the cellular level locks into topology of galaxies and all that is an astonishing absence of any specifics. It's the same pattern as other para-scientific posters demonstrate, like in Haramein's threads, over-unity engines etc. Rodin still takes the cake, though, with his "emanation point", go figure what this one is...

We should run an "ATS S&T" drinking game. Any time anyone mentions the words ZPE, fractal, anti-gravity, Tesla, "it's only a theory", free energy, et cetera you have to down a drink. As a bonus, whenever mnemeth1 calls a prominent scientist an "idiot" you have to down whatever's left in the glass

Originally posted by john_bmth
We should run an "ATS S&T" drinking game. Any time anyone mentions the words ZPE, fractal, anti-gravity, Tesla, "it's only a theory", free energy, et cetera you have to down a drink. As a bonus, whenever mnemeth1 calls a prominent scientist an "idiot" you have to down whatever's left in the glass

ai, mnemeth has a short temper it seems, but when he is calm he can make some sense. really all i see around this forum is people bashing going on like it is the thing to do. if we all like to see ourselves in the light of whatever rational hero you want, think to yourself , did they go around bashing people for their ideas? or did they explain to them why their ideas are wrong and show evidence of it? i entertain the idea that einstein would not have called tesla a simple engineer with the scientific backround of a ape fish. i think he would have sat down with him and would have a sensible debate about their ideas over tea and no bash crumpets. really this is all i ask of you who reply to any thread.

on a side note, i think i might start a thread about the state of current science and supporting ideas as to why it does and does not push our knowledge forward. i will do a thread search for such a thing.


i also want to add that the LHC and fission reactors are controlled by magnetic fields. as in the plasma they produce are restrained from blowing stuff up by a magnetic field. this, i feel, gives some merit to the eu theory.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
really all i see around this forum is people bashing going on like it is the thing to do.

Sorry but it's hard for me to have a different reaction when somebody says "Einstein was a moron" or "All of Physics is a Lie". Sometimes a line must be drawn, seeing it at as ATS is supposed to be a tool for "denying ignorance".

When somebody says that from galaxies down to cellular level the Universe is a giant fractal pattern, I do expect a modicum of detail of how this works. And if the Sun is indeed a giant sink for electric current, where is that current located. Absent that, all and any such claims are not worthy this forum and I have no problem calling them that.

i also want to add that the LHC and fission reactors are controlled by magnetic fields. as in the plasma they produce are restrained from blowing stuff up by a magnetic field.

The LHC is not "controlled by electric fields". It does use dipoles to direct protons beams around its circumference. Fission reactors aren't either, although you obviously confused fission with fusion. Anyhow, it's irrelevant in the first place. There is magnetic field in my electric razor, but it doesn't mean that the Sun is a giant electric razor. There is lots of Helium in the Sun, and there is Helium in balloons I buy for my kids' parties. That does not mean that the Sun is a giant party balloon.

this, i feel, gives some merit to the eu theory.

It does not.

Sorry but it's hard for me to have a different reaction when somebody says "Einstein was a moron" or "All of Physics is a Lie". Sometimes a line must be drawn, seeing it at as ATS is supposed to be a tool for "denying ignorance".

while i see your way of making sense of your decision, does 2 wrongs make a right? a purely philosophical point, i know.

When somebody says that from galaxies down to cellular level the Universe is a giant fractal pattern, I do expect a modicum of detail of how this works. And if the Sun is indeed a giant sink for electric current, where is that current located. Absent that, all and any such claims are not worthy this forum and I have no problem calling them that.

as i posted we need to point gamma-type high energy instruments at the sun to verify this, as of now i do not know if this was done. as for the fractal stuff, i could not comment as i have not read too much into it.

The LHC is not "controlled by electric fields". It does use dipoles to direct protons beams around its circumference. Fission reactors aren't either, although you obviously confused fission with fusion. Anyhow, it's irrelevant in the first place. There is magnetic field in my electric razor, but it doesn't mean that the Sun is a giant electric razor. There is lots of Helium in the Sun, and there is Helium in balloons I buy for my kids' parties. That does not mean that the Sun is a giant party balloon.

i never said electric fields, though i suppose i conveyed that from the other things i wrote. what you say, sir, confirms that the LHC is controlled my magnetism though. as for the fission reactors, you are right. i keep mixing the 2.

example i know you know about this.

so if gravity can control plasma, like it does on the sun, why do we not use the gravity of objects to control plasma? instead of pumping giant amounts of energy to control the plasma, we should be able to use a giant lead wall or something of that nature to control it with gravity. more mass = more gravity right? and if it requires a vacuum, almost all plasma experiments are done in a vacuum so that is one thing in common.

It does not.

edit on 14-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo

e does not equal mc2 (squared) because einstein stated, "because i said so fool!" he had to convince people it did.

i know this seems tripe or devil's advocate, but as much as you believe in GR, i see just as many flaws with it. i suppose i do not know enough math to get it.

i appreciate your input and am enjoying this. you do bring good points up that have me thinking. it is helping me to deny my ignorance.


also, i bring a purely laymans brain to this. i do not pretend to be educated formally or anything. what i know is all self taught, so that would explain the constant confusions with things like fission and fusion. but i do thank you for pointing that out to me.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
i never said electric fields, though i suppose i conveyed that from the other things i wrote

I meant magnetic, my bad.

what you say, sir, confirms that the LHC is controlled my magnetism though. as for the fission reactors, you are right. i keep mixing the 2.

No, the LHC is not "controlled" by magnetism. It's a strange choice of words. My electric razor is not controlled by magnetic fields either, even though they do exist in that device as well.

so if gravity can control plasma, like it does on the sun, why do we not use the gravity of objects to control plasma? instead of pumping giant amounts of energy to control the plasma, we should be able to use a giant lead wall or something of that nature to control it with gravity. more mass = more gravity right?

Still not enough. Even Jupiter where conditions are about right for fusion still isn't massive enough to ignite. And Jupiter is a gigantic planet compared to Earth.

i know this seems tripe or devil's advocate, but as much as you believe in GR, i see just as many flaws with it. i suppose i do not know enough math to get it.

Exactly, so by the same token you can't really find flaws. I personally do not claim any expertise in GR. I chose to take a different class over GR.

Originally posted by john_bmth
We should run an "ATS S&T" drinking game. Any time anyone mentions the words ZPE, fractal, anti-gravity, Tesla, "it's only a theory", free energy, et cetera you have to down a drink. As a bonus, whenever mnemeth1 calls a prominent scientist an "idiot" you have to down whatever's left in the glass

This seems like fun when you proposed it, but in retrospect I'm not willing to sacrifice my liver for someone's obsessive-compulsive habit.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
e does not equal mc2 (squared) because einstein stated, "because i said so fool!" he had to convince people it did.

Einstein put forth some ideas on paper.

But his papers by themselves weren't very convincing, because he didn't have much evidence to support them (other than the perihelion of Mercury) when he published them.

So who did the convincing? It wasn't Einstein as much as other scientists testing the ideas that Einstein put forth. Scientists all over the world have done experiments and made observations confirming Einstein's theory. One pivotal moment in the acceptance of Einstein's GR theory is when Sir Arthur Eddington confirmed Einstein's predictions with an eclipse observation in 1919, and we've been making observations ever since.

Now take the electric sun theory, which claims the sun is powered by a huge inflow of electrons. This situation is exactly the opposite of Einstein's paper, since NOBODY has measured a net inflow of electrons into the sun, but we have measured the exact opposite, a huge outflow, just about everywhere except over the exact poles of the sun where we haven't made any measurements yet. So now electric sun people say "oh maybe it's there at the pole, you haven't measured there". Maybe someday we'll make measurements exactly at the pole, but there are plenty of reasons to predict those future measurements won't show a huge inflow of electrons, such as the electrical behavior of coronal holes- they don't show electrons being "sucked in" like we would expect if the sun was "sucking in" electrons.

So science isn't determined by the charisma, or looks, or the persuasiveness of the person making the argument. Science is based on whether the argument stands up to experiments and observations. Einstein's theories have stood up to observations, while Juergen's electric sun model has not, it's that simple. We have made plenty of observations since Juergen's proposal and they contradict it rather than confirming it. Those are what you need to familiarize yourself with if you want to study the two theories.

One more thing, don't fall into the trap of thinking that you must choose whether electricity or gravity can have an effect. Obviously both can and do have effects. It's a matter of sorting out which effects we see are caused by which source and since both forces are modeled mathematically, then you will need considerable math to evaluate various claims. Tom Bridgeman wrote an article discussing some of these issues: The Electric Sky, Short-circuited (pdf):

If any Electric Universe advocates wish to comment on this, they would enhance their credibility if they worked some of the undergraduate physics-level 'homework problems' at the end, and discuss the implications for the Electric Universe.

He gives 7 homework problems at the end, which are undergraduate level and pretty simple but I'll bet many electric universe believers can't solve them, because they lack the math and other analytical skills to analyze observations. If somebody can solve those problems and still believes in the electric sun, I'd be interested in their observations too, but I suspect the electric sun believers know they are ignorant because none of them did the homework problems or contacted the author as he describes here:

An "Electric Sky" response?

Apparently the Electric Universe (EU( forum has had some discussion of my work "The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited". ...

This is the first I've seen of this response even though it appears to be from the March-April 2008 time frame. Apparently no one on the forum felt any need to contact me directly, or indirectly, for clarification of anything in my paper. Looking at the weakness of their 'rebuttal', I can guess why. For a group that claims to be a bunch of electrical engineers, they seem incredibly ignorant of much of the physics (particularly quantum mechanics) that has driven their own field over the past 50 years. Most of their understanding of physics seems pre-1900!

My observations are consistent with this, that people who believe the electric sun model don't have a good grasp of physics in general.

while i agree i do not understand the math, it does not take a mathematician to see the obvious flaws with the theory.

how does gravity apply to this?


looks like a plasma hourglass shape that reproduced in experiments.

you said you studied something other then GR, what was that? i would like to know were you are coming from, or at least explore other ideas.

yes, a strange choice of words, really a lack of knowing anything better to explain what i trying to convey.
you raise some points, sir. i will do some more resaerch into the lhc and see how it works. this really brings more questions to my head.

i am going to do more research. i did find something i knew about for a while but i actually found a hard data article. i have not had a chance to read it yet. please let me know your ideas on this. though i am sure you have seen or heard of this.

Galaxy formation using plasma driven model

while i do not think this refutes GR, it does point that gravity is not the dominating force in galaxy formation. sorry its in pdf, all i could find.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
while i agree i do not understand the math, it does not take a mathematician to see the obvious flaws with the theory.

how does gravity apply to this?

I see at least two problems with that question: why do mentioned GR and not just Newtonian gravity? Second, why do you say gravity DOES NOT APPLY according to that pic?

looks like a plasma toroid.

Again, if you look your imagination run wild, it can look like anything. You don't have grounds to suggest that's plasma. Or if it is plasma, that it's origin is some electric current and not the action of radiative energy sources.
Clouds high in the sky may look like "plasma" to you under certain conditions. If you look inside a water-moderated nuclear reactor (I did), you'll see beautiful blue light, but it does not mean that water is converted into plasma.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


thank you for the info! i will look into these two theories more. i have not heard of this jeurgen fellow and will look into that as well. i do read the eu forums, though i do not post. i will see if they said anything about this fellow you mention who posted on there.

i do not deny any of einsteins theories, just the ones we try to use to explain the universe as dominated by gravity. they are not wrong either, but they should not be the end all theory. we should push more ideas forward beyond just doing the math. nor am i saying eu is right. obviously it has just as many problems as GR does.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
while i agree i do not understand the math, it does not take a mathematician to see the obvious flaws with the theory.

how does gravity apply to this?

Knowing some math would be helpful.

We see stars forming in there from the collapse of the material in the nebula, and that specific photo is referenced in the wikipedia on star formation:

Star formation is the process by which dense parts of molecular clouds collapse into a ball of plasma to form a star.

Your picture (a larger version of it, which my Avatar is also a part of) carries the following caption:

Hubble telescope image known as Pillars of Creation, where stars are forming in the Eagle Nebula.

And here is the technical description of how gravity forms new stars there:

An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[13] If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass. The Jeans mass depends on the temperature and density of the cloud, but is typically thousands to tens of thousands of solar masses.[2] This coincides with the typical mass of an open cluster of stars, which is the end product of a collapsing cloud.

Do you follow any of that? The math isn't mentioned explicitly, but there's plenty of math behind it.

reply to post by buddhasystem


never heard of newtonian gravity. thanks catholic school! will look into it. i do not imply gravity is not there, i simply ask how it can form something like that. but if newtonian gravity is the answer i will research. please do not get emotional on this, just think you are talking to a elementary school kid who was taught by creationists and told that the earth goes round the sun because that is how god wanted it to work.

again, thank you for even replying.

I see the the flat earthers are at it again.

Arbitrageur and buddhasystem and a few others (but those two are the main culprits) sit on this thread and do nothing but troll. I'll give Arbitrageur a little credit at least he tried to post some quotes and things, However they were out of context or outright deceptive. While buddhasystem has not posted a single piece of evidence in this entire thread. Their arguments have been systematically dismantled thrown on the floor and stomped in to oblivion, with evidence, links, cites, logic, and reason, more then once on each topic by several different people. One only need read through the thread to verify this.

Their tactic has been to consistently ignore it all and continue to repeat the same non-sense over and over. They have no intention of ever objectively studying the EU model and the several decades of evidence that has been compiled on it. They are just trying to reinforce their emotional attachment to their illusions of having some sure knowledge on the gravity model and refuse to grow with the new knowledge. Science has passed them by just like it did the flat earthers back in the day.

Take the neutrino objection, I have personally posted evidence destroying it and it has never been responded to and here they are still arguing it like it has any validity... Sigh! They are trolls and will never respond with more then "no its not" or some similar facsimile thereof. I could literally respond to every one of their objections with " Its been dealt with already in the thread several times now and you have not refuted it". It wouldn't matter to them they'll just ignore it and continue their mantra of "no it's not" with no evidence or substance whatsoever. I am sure one or both of them will have some snide, flippant, or arrogant remark to say of this post. After all it is all they have to cling to.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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).

I agree, that is why I mentioned the more recent experiments. oscillations exist yes. Can you show the quantitive data for the rate of oscillation or where the mechanism exist on it's jouney to earth? Why does there appear to be a strong correlation between sun spots and solar wind strenght if there are no reactions at the surface. There is BTW. The sunspot correlation is another big problem for the SNO assumption.

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

I don't have too regarding your false assumptions, saying the electric model excludes nuclear reactions is blatantly false and reveals you lack of understanding.

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.

Of course you can't let my one sentence philosophical musing go, it's because you have little else to use.

The purpose of this paper is to show that plasma physics can be useful in the investigation of the physical properties of living cells. Concepts like charge neutrality, Debye length, and double layer are very useful to explain the electrical properties of a cellular membrane. It is hoped that examples of physics applications to biology can be useful in giving students of physics courses new motivations to study physics and to carry out interdisciplinary studies. This paper can be easily understood by students of physics courses with no previous knowledge of plasma physics or biology.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

I could post hundreds of links relating plasma physics with the electrical properties of cells but it's a little off topic.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

i do understand. the pressure of the gases in the cloud make it form that way, being held by the over all gravity of all the gases being so close. if the pressure of the gas is great enough to override gravity it will hold the formation. if it is too big with not enough pressure, the clouds own gravity will collapse into stars. least i think i got it.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

thank you for the info! i will look into these two theories more. i have not heard of this jeurgen fellow and will look into that as well. i do read the eu forums, though i do not post. i will see if they said anything about this fellow you mention who posted on there.

You're welcome. Here's a link to Juergens to get you started.

Ralph Juergens
He was a follower of Velikovsky, and wrote about the electric sun in 1972:

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

So even Velikovsky didn't believe the electric sun theory. He believed evidence for fusion as the source of the sun's power was too strong, and Velikovsky had no fear of challenging mainstream science as he did it constantly.

i do not deny any of einsteins theories, just the ones we try to use to explain the universe as dominated by gravity. they are not wrong either, but they should not be the end all theory. we should push more ideas forward beyond just doing the math. nor am i saying eu is right. obviously it has just as many problems as GR does.

This is a reasonable approach, and the only part I would disagree with is the last statement, that EU has as many problems as GR does, that's not correct. It has many more.

I don't know if it's correct to say that general relativity has problems. It would be more correct to say that we have made observations that we can't explain (specifically dark matter and dark energy related observations). But I don't know of any specific claim by general relativity that these observations disprove. It could be that we need better observations, or a new theory or model (as was developed to explain the shortfall of neutrino emissions coming from the sun versus what our models predicted).

But you are absolutely correct that our inability to explain these observations in no way specifically supports any alternate theory, and each theory must stand on the merits of how well the claims match observations.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

Absolutely 100% wrong I'm afraid, you credibilitly is crumbling.

en.wikipedia.org...

Solar surface fusion is produced by reactions during or preceding a solar flare and at much lower levels elsewhere near or above the photosphere of the Sun. Nuclear fusion usually occurs within a star such as the Sun as a part of stellar nucleosynthesis. But, a variety of subatomic particle and γ-ray reactions have been observed during solar flares indicating nuclear fusion reactions occurring at or above the photosphere, most likely in the chromosphere.

Originally posted by tokinjedi
i think i got it.

I think you got it too, it's a battle between the gas pressure and gravity. What we see in the nebula is that sometimes one wins and sometimes the other wins. Where gravity wins, a new star is formed. Where the gas pressure wins, we see the nebula. We see each winning there, in different areas.

i try not step on toes when talking to people. not my style. i try to keep an open mind, and honestly i am way out of it from being sick and up all night watching japan to think of my usual arguments. though they did bring light some things i did not know.

i think Arbitrageur is a worthy person to take this chat up with as he provides the data to his claims. that is how we discuss science, godamit! show the data with your claims, not spout it with no reference material like a brainwashed zombie (mnemeth1 can be accused of this sometimes as well as buddah).

let me come back tomorrow with all my powers at the ready to keep this going. if you want to that is. i think this should stay in this thread as well as it will give the masses data and ideas to think about dealing with this. especially when you are at the level i am.

and please refrain from name calling. lets make this a respectable conversation.

from this point on if you have nothing nice to say, do not say anything.