The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 20
55
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
there are a spectrum of electric sun beliefs ranging from a belief that there's no fusion at all,


Really? do you have any references for this? that's news to me.



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)


Ahemm... it's you who needs a little help. Nuclear reactions on / above the suface are a fact.



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.


Did your good grasp of physics did not let you anticipate nuclear reactions in the chromosphere and solar flares?




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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?


Hey wait a minute, I thought we'd solved the solar nuetrino problem? Is it a problem again?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.


A comparison of Einstein's theory in relation to The electric sun theory is completely inapropriate. Why are we not comparing against standard solar theory? Which no one has been able to solve the riddles of. That everyone cites as being so successfull, all the while overlooking some very fundamental problems connected with it.

Your claim that EU proponents say the currents would be at the poles where measurements haven't been taken is also completely false, Alfviens model has been around for quite sometime and this was always his proposal.
As most do and even Tim Tompson does, you are also assuming the wrong model as in an electrostatic scenario.

Straw men and false assumptions, nothing new I suppose.



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.


Why again comparing Einstein with the electric sun? Do we want to compare standard cosmology with plasma cosmology, let's see, Dark Matter, Dark energy, Dark flow, Strange Matter, Black holes, Accretion theory on and on with these fabrications. Nothing even close to experimentally confirmed observations in any of it. Jeurgons model is based completely on observations and known physics. Oh the hypocrisy.

Oh and please, beyond the elusive power source what are these contradictions that have been observed please enlighten.
Would you like another list of contradictions regarding standard theory?



Tom Bridgeman wrote an article discussing some of these issues: The Electric Sky, Short-circuited (pdf):


The rebuttal is available at Don Scotts page, as is Stephen Chrothers Rebuttal.
Stephen gives a good overview of his dealings with Tom, quite telling really of the sort of character he is.
edit on 15-3-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
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...


If you mean this post of yours, you need to be truly delusional to say that it destroys the validity of SNO and other papers:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sorry but I have nothing but hand waving in your link and I have a thorough piece of research in the other. Actually, it's worse than hand waving, as it contains astonishing pieces of nonsense like tau neutrino created in outer layers of the Sun, which is absurd on many levels, but in particular in regards to lepton number conservation.

Further, I wound this jewel of yours:


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.


Please explain the electron dipole moment based on this. Hint: you can't.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

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.


Did you read the word "enough" in my post? Before you proceed to judge my credibility, it behooves you to acquire basic reading comprehension skills. Since you referred to Wikipedia, you might also want to read

en.wikipedia.org...

where it says:

The core is the only region in the Sun that produces an appreciable amount of thermal energy through fusion; inside 24% of the Sun's radius, 99% of the power has been generated, and by 30% of the radius, fusion has stopped nearly entirely. The rest of the star is heated by energy that is transferred outward from the core and the layers just outside.


fusion has stopped nearly entirely...

Can't have it both ways.


Fusion and antimatter creation happens even here on Earth during thunderstorms, and yet this is not what powers this planet.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Did you read the word "enough" in my post? Before you proceed to judge my credibility, it behooves you to acquire basic reading comprehension skills.


Yes I did, you said there was not ENOUGH matter or ENOUGH collisions, hence no nuclear reactions.
Go and read it yourself.

Now you are trying to tell me you were saying there are not enough nuclear reactions.


Nice try, but no dice.

So where is the definitive proof of nuclear reactions at the core?
We want definitive proof of an external power source, you can't have it both ways indeed.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
A comparison of Einstein's theory in relation to The electric sun theory is completely inapropriate. ...
Why again comparing Einstein with the electric sun? Do we want to compare standard cosmology with plasma cosmology, let's see, Dark Matter, Dark energy, Dark flow, Strange Matter, Black holes, Accretion theory on and on with these fabrications. Nothing even close to experimentally confirmed observations in any of it. Jeurgons model is based completely on observations and known physics. Oh the hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy, I don't claim to have explanations for dark matter or dark energy. They are observations we can't explain.

This is quite a different situation from the electric sun model which claims a current flow opposite from what we observe. People claiming "dark matter" are saying we don't know something. People claiming "electric sun" are claiming we DO know something: that the sun is powered by electricity, by a flow of electrons in a direction which contradicts observation.



Your claim that EU proponents say the currents would be at the poles where measurements haven't been taken is also completely false, Alfviens model has been around for quite sometime and this was always his proposal.
What part of that claim is false?

Alfvén's circuit diagram from his book "Cosmic Plasma" is shown here:



This is not showing the sun being electrically powered by an external source like some people are claiming. As far as I can tell that circuit can be powered by nuclear fusion at the core of the sun. Did Alfvén ever claim that fusion was not occurring at the core of the sun and that was not the source of the sun's power? If so please point me to that reference. I wonder if some people are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the work of Alfvén.
edit on 15-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


While I disagree with much of what you have written, I'm glad that you are actually looking and hopefully learning.
You are correct Alfvien never insisted on a completely external power source. I believe he did speculate that these field lines may hook up to larger currents. There's a much better diagram about. Nasa just ripped it off recently with a new model of the solar interior to explain sunspots. The current flows are identical.

If you look back to my earlier post you'll see that there is a depletion in the electon halo at the pole due to incoming electrons. A mirroring of electrons along these field lines in both directions. I don't believe electrons flowing into the sun was ever anticipated in the standard theory.

The slow drift carries the charge, the electrons don't have to be flying into the sun at super speeds, The slow drift should show a condensing of electrons with proximity to the sun, we do infact find a cloud of electrons around the sun, they apparently come from two sources internally and from out in the heliosphere. The standard assumption is that they are backscattering from the heliosphere, this would be true I imagine (with out the kinetic implication), of course the other possibility is from the galactic plasma or more likely both. This accounts for the Ibex ribbon.

Also check the other paper regarding the numerical sinulations of the incoming current and polar field lines, non EU source btw. Likewise only speculation where these so called open field lines at the poles link to.

All of those links I posted match Alfviens model very well.

I know more data is needed before we can say there it is, It is not enough at the moment. however I must say that the findings in the past few years are astonishingly on the mark, not just those couple but dozens of "surprises" regarding the sun and stellar formation.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Did you read the word "enough" in my post? Before you proceed to judge my credibility, it behooves you to acquire basic reading comprehension skills.


Yes I did, you said there was not ENOUGH matter or ENOUGH collisions, hence no nuclear reactions.
Go and read it yourself.


OK, I oblige:


There is not enough matter in the outer layers of the sun to produce enough collisions and fusion events


That's pretty much what your Wiki link said, which I only read later, and that's the only logical thing to say because of plethora of Sun physics facts.

So when you say

Now you are trying to tell me you were saying there are not enough nuclear reactions.


That's exactly what I said: not enough collisions and not enough fusion events. That's what Wikipedia says as well.

I see that you have trouble following.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I'd just want to add, I don't think the external power source is the real issue. As Don Scott says what we must recognize is that all the features of the sun on and above the surface are explainable in terms of known plasma physics. If there is a magnetic dynamo at the heart of the sun, which is what NASA recently proposed.
Then so be it. Hard to imagine a magnetic dynamo of nuclear reactions though.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I'd just want to add, I don't think the external power source is the real issue.


But it's exactly the real issue! Nuclear reactions play little to no role in how the outer layers of the Sun function. Check. Plasma in the Sun behaves like well, plasma. Check.

Absent some wild alternative source of energy, you are saying you agree with the standard model. Fine.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
While I disagree with much of what you have written, I'm glad that you are actually looking and hopefully learning.
You are correct Alfvien never insisted on a completely external power source.
Well it's the external power source I have a problem with.

I think EU proponents pose a false dichotomy by trying to pose two alternate models as either gravity/fusion on the one hand, or electric on the other hand.

This is not the choice at all. Mainstream science has long recognized all kinds of magnetically related electrical current loops around the sun like large solar prominences, smaller spicules, etc. The loops in Alfvén's circuit, if proven true, are just much larger loops but still loops that leave the sun at one point and re-enter at another point.

And even though it's complicated and not fully understood, I don't see any reason a combination of fluid dynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, and other models can't cause these loops to form from the convection occurring as a result of nuclear fusion at the sun's core.

The big problem I see is the claim of an external power source for the sun, instead of fusion as the power source. I don't have a problem with solar prominences, spicules, since those have been known and observed for many decades, not would I have any conceptual problem with an even larger current loop that is a result of the sun's fusion power, like the one in Alfvén's circuit diagram, if it is ever actually measured.

But it's strange that Alfvén is cited to support the electric powered sun when you admit that there's no clear citation from him that he believes the "electric sun" model itself, or at least his model allows for nuclear fusion at the core of the sun. This should really point to the shaky ground the electric sun model is on, at least the version that claims the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion at the core. I've been accused in this thread of misrepresenting things, but citing Alfvén in support of a sun electrically powered by an external source rather than fusion, when Alfvén didn't buy into that theory, seems pretty high on the misrepresentation scale to me, though you've redeemed yourself by admitting that Alfven didn't buy it.

But if you find the other circuit diagram you mentioned, please post it, the one I posted is the only one I have from Alfvén for the sun, though I have other circuit diagrams from Alfvén.
edit on 15-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Fair enough, So you are saying there aren't enough reactions to make up for the unfounded nuetrino level? I see, sorry bout that. Just because I post a wiki link does not mean I believe it's contents, I was showing that even in the mainstream view nuclear reactions are present in the surface.

So how does this impact the SNO assumption?
What of the highly likely correlation between sunspots, solar wind strength and nuetrino flux? How would this impact the assumption? How would the possibility of a fourth type affect the assumption?

No worries they ah.. change somewhere along the way, oh wait no it's in the interior, yeah that's it.
It's the inescapaple conclusion right?

Perhaps there is a nuetrino deficiet not because they are oscillating (the loop hole) but because it is only happening on and above the surface where all the flavours are created?

You gotta have those nuetrinos, what other evidence is there for nuclear reactions at the core?

As for those plethora of solar facts how about we have some?
I haven't had any of my questions answered.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
double
edit on 15-3-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Reply to both -

Yep that's right, go watch Don Scotts presentation for NASA he also shares the same sentiment.
And as I must repeat admits it to be the most speculative part.

No standard theory assumes many kinetic properites, gas physics, heat convection, propagation by sound waves to be major forces at work. It's completely different.

I don't speak for EU my opinions are my own, EU is not presenting two models, Bruce is different to Juergons, different to Alfvien different to Scott and Thornhill.
edit on 15-3-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Yep that's right, go watch Don Scotts presentation for NASA he also shares the same sentiment.
And as I must repeat admits it to be the most speculative part.
Don Scott is like Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, Tom Bridgman noted that he and others made a similar observation:
Donald Scott, of "The Electric Sky", presents at Goddard Space Flight Center

Dr. Scott's presentation was considerably less confrontational than his book. A fact that was noted by others whom I spoke with after the talk.
I thought the same thing.

I watch his presentation and he comes across like a relatively sane person.

I read what he's written and it's really "out there", like the electric grand canyon stuff (which he avoids mentioning or glosses over in his presentations to scientists). Sometimes it's hard to believe it's the same person.

edit on 15-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I believe this was intentfull, baby steps so to speak. I'm sure he strongly believes in an external power source I think that is obvious. I believe he set out to address some of the very basic issues that can be quantified.

The critics will use anything to put dirt on Scott or Thornhill, personal attacks and all.

I believe he took the correct approach, I don't believe it's wise to start bashing Einstein or anyone for that matter it won't make people listen. But hey cosmology has become a bit of a joke and it's fun to poke at it sometimes.
I'm absolutely positive Einstein would have a different view with our current understanding.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Just because I post a wiki link does not mean I believe it's contents


Wait, you took it upon itself to try and undermine my credibility using that link (in which you pathetically failed). Saying later that you didn't believe the contents you tried to peruse to cast doubt on my understanding of the issues involved is more than a little disingenuous.


So how does this impact the SNO assumption?


Sunspot count:

galprop.stanford.edu...
iopscience.iop.org...

No correlation.

I skip the rest of your quote, but please try to spell "neutrino" correctly, you always manage to get it wrong and in the context of this thread it just looks silly. I'm glad you got the "Sun" right.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


In a short paragraph, you managed to use the verb "believe" not one but five times.
I guess everybody needs a religion, regardless of how absurd its tenets are.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Please explain the electron dipole moment based on this. Hint: you can't.


I already have its accepted science and I posted a quote and link to the Harvard site which you ignored and continue the steady stream of BS from your mouth as is your tactic. Thanks for accentuating and illustrating my point though. You are so predictable.





new topics
top topics
 
55
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join