The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 55 times


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 12:58 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnPhoenix



OK..fine.

Then I suggest people go to the first link, and read Tim Thompson's article.

AS TO "Thunderbolts from the Sky"?? Sounds like a good name for a rock band, but that's about it.



reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:00 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to
post by JohnPhoenix



OK..fine.

Then I suggest people go to the first link, and read Tim Thompson's article.

AS TO "Thunderbolts from the Sky"?? Sounds like a good name for a rock band, but that's about it.


I concur, just be sure to read Scott's rejoinder next, which smashes Thompson's ad homs and misrepresentations to pieces.


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:06 PM by ChemBreather
reply to post by weedwhacker



But,but, those people cant be trusted WackerBoy, they make their own 'facts' like others I know.

You should atleast watch the Thunderbolt, it is very interesting,Im 50 minutes out in it now, lots of cool stuff there, and again, they say the Standard Astronomers really do not Want to go into the topic, even more reason for me to believe it, cause the 'standard' of things seem to be have been DeBunked.....

[edit on 16/12/2009 by ChemBreather]


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:35 PM by mnemeth1
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife



The Tokamak is one more massive waste of our tax dollars that scientists promote, knowing full well that it will never be a viable form of fusion energy.

The reasons for this are simple, as you mentioned, they have to confine the plasma with magnetic fields to keep it from melting the walls of the reactor.

Such a feat is virtually impossible for any length of time and they know it. The energy required to maintain the field is necessarily huge making it enormously inefficient, as well as the fact the plasma and magnetic fields fluctuate, making it enormously difficult to contain.

A plasma cosmologist, Eric Lerner, has proposed a simple solution to this problem that uses the plasmas own magnetic field to make it confine itself, rather than using externally powered magnetic fields to confine it.

Of course, his idea has been ridiculed and scorned by the establishment - probably because it might actually work. Which, as I stated earlier, is a big no-no.

You can watch him give a Google Tech Talk on subject here.

His plasma fusion research site is here.

His plasma cosmology site is here.




[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:37 PM by Phage
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


The sun is held together and under pressure by its own gravity.
1.98892 E 30 kilograms creates a lot of gravity.


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:39 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Phage
reply to
post by Hastobemoretolife


The sun is held together and under pressure by its own gravity.
1.98892 E 30 kilograms creates a lot of gravity.



Tell me oh wise one.

What is the effective gravity at the center of the Sun?

If I climbed into the middle of the Sun, and I weigh 200 lbs on the surface of the Earth, how much would I weigh in the middle of the Sun?



[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:41 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnPhoenix



We should firstly understand the difference between a theory and an hypothesis.

You can look up their definitions yourselves, no need to waste time and space here.

But, consider this: Once you look it up, then it becomes apparent that the "Electric Universe" concept, even as an imagined model to attempt to describe something, is no more than a mere hypothesis. It has no resemblance to actual theories, as defined.

Also, the analogy to Newton and Relativity and Quantum theory is flawed.

Each has its own merits, and can stands alone within its own paradigm and field of study. Hard to explain, but just read about it, or find some science documentaries on video.

Ultimately, the "Holy Grail" of science today, in the realm of investigating 'Life, the Universe and Everything' (to borrow from Douglas Adams' book title) is the so-called "TOE" (Theory of Everything).

It is the search for the reconciliation of all the forces in nature. It is thought that all forces sprang at once from the "Big Bang", and diverged from there to what we observe and measure today. In other words, higher and higher energy levels, and matter states of energy, lead to the more fundamental nature of matter, and what it was composed of, what comprised it, and how it acted in the 'beginning'. BUT, even the 'Bang' is, on some levels, still in the hypothesis stage of development. Even so, it is still a far more viable, and I say, convincing model to use than this "EU" thing.

About those forces: I'll let you ponder this problem. Why is gravity so weak? Compared to, say....magnetism? About magnetism, BTW...that's probably why someone started up this "EU" stuff in the first place, brainstorming, perhaps, after a few too many lagers (or something).

I refer, of course, to the fact that we call it the 'electromagnetic' spectrum when we discuss everything involving, say, magnetism to X-rays.

It is, therefore, overly simplistic to think that this "EU" concept has merit. But, it seems that is what some want --- an easier concept to think about, instead of having to take the harder road, into quantum science, super strings studies, singularities....etc. Oh, the mathematics of it all, can make one's head ache.
_____________________________________________________________

edit @ Chembreather:

Originally posted by Chembreather
. . .those people cant be trusted WackerBoy. . .


You are being given ONE pass on that remark, because I am aware that English is not your primary language.





[edit on 16 December 2009 by weedwhacker]


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:44 PM by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1


Who cares. You wouldn't "weigh" anything but you would have the pressure of 695,500 kilometers of material pressing on you from every direction. That would be about 3 e 11 atmospheres. I don't think you would find it comfortable.


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:50 PM by watcher73
I was just reading some kind of refutation of the electric model on another site

www.tim-thompson.com...

He says something about fusion has to happen in the core where energy and density are both high enough to cause it. He is refuting some electric theory proponent who says some fusion may happen on the surface.

It's lame because fusion requires temperature & density both. We know the temperature at the solar photosphere, about 6000 Kelvins. And, we know the temperature in the corona, 1,000,000 to perhaps 5,000,000 Kelvins. But the photosphere is too cold, and the corona far too sparsely populated, to promote enough fusion reactions to cover the one half expected neutrino flux.


Firstly I'm not so sure about the sparsely populated part. Maybe, maybe not. I guess my question has more to do with the temperature differences. While it may only take a temp of 6000K for fusion to occur in the photosphere supposedly, the temperature of the corona, 200x that of the photosphere at a minimum, doesnt give particles enough energy to fuse when they smack into each other? Wouldnt the magnetic field of the sun actually group particles more closely than "sparsely populated" anyway? This how the LHC and virtually every other collider work is it not?

To help put this in perspective

1 million kelvin = 1 799 540.33 degrees Fahrenheit
5 million kelvin = 8 999 540.33 degrees Fahrenheit

There is a huge amount of energy in the corona being transferrred to particles there.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by watcher73]


reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 01:53 PM by mnemeth1
Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT, even the 'Bang' is, on some levels, still in the hypothesis stage of development. Even so, it is still a far more viable, and I say, convincing model to use than this "EU" thing.


You forgot to add "in my opinion".

The big bang was created by a catholic priest in a bid to tie science and theology together.

I offer a massive amount of evidence calling it into question
here.


    -quasar magnitude does not correlate to their redshift
    -quasar clustering is highly improbable; it does not support the big bang.
    -quasar redshifts are observed to be quantized
    -high redshift objects appear connected to low redshift objects
    -redshift can be well explained by the Wolf effect
    -gravitationally lensed objects do not correlate to proposed theories; numerous "lensed" objects have been observed to change in intensity, move around, and are point like.
    -halo effects that appear to be lens like can be explained by magnetic field phenomena.
    -fully formed galaxies are observed as far as we can see, meaning they must have been fully formed just a few hundred million years after the supposed big bang.
    -quasar luminosity means some of them are supposedly outputting the equivalent energy of hundreds of millions of milky way galaxies combined (ridiculous).


In fact the list goes on and on and on and on.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says
  Posted 14 days ago with 77 member flags
TV Networks Say You\'re Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags
Schoolboy \'genius\' solves puzzles posed by Sir Isaac Newton
  Posted 2 days ago with 21 member flags
I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?
  Posted 17 days ago with 20 member flags
World’s longest-running experiment now with webcam
  Posted 15 days ago with 19 member flags
Bye Bye Co2 and global warming
  Posted 7 days ago with 16 member flags
Big Oil Vs. Plasma Battery Technology - Guess who is winning?
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags