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 Arbitrageur
there are a spectrum of electric sun beliefs ranging from a belief that there's no fusion at all,
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)
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
SOHO has revolutionized what we know about the solar atmosphere and violent solar storms produced by the sun
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."
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.
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.
Tom Bridgeman wrote an article discussing some of these issues: The Electric Sky, Short-circuited (pdf):
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not hypocrisy, I don't claim to have explanations for dark matter or dark energy. They are observations we can't explain.
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.
What part of that claim is false?
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.
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.
There is not enough matter in the outer layers of the sun to produce enough collisions and fusion events
Now you are trying to tell me you were saying there are not enough nuclear reactions.
Originally posted by squiz
I'd just want to add, I don't think the external power source is the real issue.
Well it's the external power source I have a problem with.
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.
Don Scott is like Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, Tom Bridgman noted that he and others made a similar observation:
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.
I thought the same thing.
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.
Originally posted by squiz
Just because I post a wiki link does not mean I believe it's contents
So how does this impact the SNO assumption?
Please explain the electron dipole moment based on this. Hint: you can't.