Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

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

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
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.


Let me help you further. This is the abstract you quoted:

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.


What does is have to do with the question I asked? The ignorami visiting this board have a tendency to pull random links and claim relevance. Sad.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
When Galileo suggested the Earth was much more advanced then previously thought and was indeed round rather then flat, people had the same response. Yes I'm bringing up this argument as the mass consciousness still has very medieval views of Earth and our Sun.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Well I checked one of your links, and it confirms variation with the sunspot cycle? What are you talking about?
For every link you could find saying no correlation you'l find dozens that do.

Once again I'll state that my post wiki post was intentional, can you prove any of it? this is the first question of mine you've attempted to answer and straight away it confirms what I was saying.

Your play on words is of no consequence, all you have provided is insults really, So explain to me
exactly, not enough nuclear reactions to account for what? a neutrino deficit ?


The suns interior is completely hypothetical, but you can't admit.
Another point NASA recently completely reinvented the core of the sun to explain the sun spot cycle.
There where never meant to be any spinning dynamos inside the sun. Even they are seeing the limits of nuclear core.

I'm terrible at spelling I admit. So you can lay off the petty cr@p, My message is clear. You failed to address any of the issues. I use believe in that post because I can not speak for the proffessor himself can I ?
You must be a hoot at a party.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Well I checked one of your links, and it confirms variation with the sunspot cycle? What are you talking about?
For every link you could find saying no correlation you'l find dozens that do.


Second link:


Because the SK-I and SK-II solar neutrino datasets span an interval of 9.5 years coinciding
with nearly the full period of solar cycle 23, it is also interesting to check for correlation of the
measured solar neutrino flux with the number of sunspots. The SK-I and -II data are compiled
into 1-year bins between 1996 and 2006 and the fluxes for these years are shown along with the
solar activity in Fig. 3. The solar neutrino flux is stable across this time period and shows no
correlation with the minima and maximum of solar cycle 23.


You said:

Once again I'll state that my post wiki post was intentional, can you prove any of it?


I strongly doubt that you intended to demonstrate lack of understanding of the subject, in your effort to question my credibility. The proof is in the many sources linked to from Wikipedia, so if you really want to know the truth, use these. Seriously, plenty of good links for all to use. If you understood how fusion works, you'd know the dependency of reaction rates on density. You totally didn't.


Your play on words is of no consequence, all you have provided is insults really, So explain to me
exactly, not enough nuclear reactions to account for what? a neutrino deficit ?


Oh boy, I really need to chew it up, don't I? To account for the total energy produced by the Sun.


The suns interior is completely hypothetical, but you can't admit.


So it composition of the atomic nucleus of proton and neutron, and composition of mesons of quarks. That doesn't mean that the theories that explain behavior of all these are wrong. Quite the opposite, there is a match between that and data.


You failed to address any of the issues.


Oh really? I pointed out the completely idiotic nature of proposition that tau and mu neutrinos are produced on the surface, and your assertion that there is plenty of energy produced on the surface as well. So there.
edit on 15-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I am still waiting for an answer why we don't see the electricity going into the Sun.



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

Originally posted by masterp
I am still waiting for an answer why we don't see the electricity going into the Sun.
I'm not still waiting, I think this is the answer:


Originally posted by squiz
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.




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.
So it's the "most speculative part" is an admission of speculation rather than proof. I'm not sure what more explanation you expect to see, that's as good as you're going to get.

I don't have any proof of my speculative theory about pink flying elephants either, but nobody has proved it's wrong.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't have any proof of my speculative theory about pink flying elephants either, but nobody has proved it's wrong.


Arb, it's getting old with your pink elephants. I insist that the center of Earth is filled with spaghetti monsters, because you know? How can we be sure it's not?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your first link says there is, It even says SNO discovered a variation. It makes no difference in the EU model. As I said there is conflicting data, even in your links. There is also a strong case for statistical errors and detector sensitivity issues.

Bottom line - Neutrino problem.


Oh boy, I really need to chew it up, don't I? To account for the total energy produced by the Sun.


Whoa there BS! You’re switching context. Yep you've certainly chewed it up alright.

Ok let’s go back a bit.

First you assert that the model does not include nuclear reactions.

Your line about not enough collisions and not enough matter or nuclear reactions was in response to a question about external currents and reactions at the surface, an electric sun context!
Nuclear power is not the source of energy in this case. So now you switch context with the standard model which was not how the original question was posed.

In other words you are saying that the electric model is invalid because there are not enough nuclear reactions going on at the surface to power the Sun? If you can’t see what is wrong with that sentence then I give up. More spin pending I imagine.


Oh really? I pointed out the completely idiotic nature of proposition that tau and mu neutrinos are produced on the surface, and your assertion that there is plenty of energy produced on the surface as well. So there.


You showed nothing of the sort. As we both know this is murky stuff, as was my main point to begin with. Well I guess that 1,000,000 degree completely unexplainable thing; the great astrophysical mystery within the standard model called the corona is not enough energy for you.

Oh and I’m still waiting for the proof of the nuclear spaghetti monster at the core of the Sun.

How can there proof when it is completely reinvented to explain the observations. The hypocrisy continues.
Guess what? There is none, only contradictions even in the most fundamental solar aspects.

The temperature gradient invalidates it, the solar wind invalidates it, the corona invalidates it, the p-modes invalidate it, the sunspots invalidate it, and the whole neutrino thing is still up in the air. And there are more acknowledged by the standard theory. The EU sun suffers none of these.

All the unsolved mysteries are in fact crippling to the theory.

The only unsolved part we are dealing with in the EU star is the power source which I have already shown that polar flows are indeed entering the sun. But we remain quiet, or is it denial? The Ibex data pretty much clinches it. If you can't see it, i's not my fault.

Unless anyone has anything substantial, I'll retire from this thread. If you believe you have anything of value please pop over to Thunderbolts with it, there's nothing here so far despite my requests. The regulars over there are fair more of a challenge for anyone posting here.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

Venus has no planetary magnetic field.
Mars has no planetary magnetic field.
The Moon has no planetary magnetic field.


Yes I know. They don't rotate either. They're quite interesting and actually bring some good points to electo magnetic universe and the way things work.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

The Moon rotates once every 27.32 days.
Venus rotates once every 243 days.
Mars rotates rotates a bit slower than Earth, once every 1.025 days.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by hawkiye
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.


Let me help you further. This is the abstract you quoted:

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.


What does is have to do with the question I asked? The ignorami visiting this board have a tendency to pull random links and claim relevance. Sad.


It appears you are the one that needs help.


REM value serves as a witness parameter to the magnetic fields associated with the lightning bolt


There is the source of the dipole alignment. And what do you know its "shock" an ELECTRIC CURRENT. Which of course agrees with Maxwell that magnetic fields do not exist without electric current. Ignoramuses indeed...


edit on 15-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
It appears you are the one that needs help.


I don't, but you you didn't even get the question I asked you twice.




REM value serves as a witness parameter to the magnetic fields associated with the lightning bolt



There is the source of the dipole alignment.


I didn't ask about minerals being magnetized by current, I twice asked you specifically about
electron magnetic dipole moment,

which is unrelated to any particular mineral through which a current has passed. My guess is that you don't know what it is.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
I posted something numbered 5 from a list here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and Hawkiye replied that it came from a list that is numbered from 1 to 4 here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I pointed out that there was a separate list further down at that same link that includes a number 5 here: www.abovetopsecret.com... but hawkiye never acknowledged that.

So I figure if the person can't tell why an item numbered 5 didn't come from a list numbered 1-4, what is the point in even debating with that person? And you're hoping they will understand some more esoteric concepts?

Good luck with that.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by hawkiye
It appears you are the one that needs help.


I don't, but you you didn't even get the question I asked you twice.




REM value serves as a witness parameter to the magnetic fields associated with the lightning bolt



There is the source of the dipole alignment.


I didn't ask about minerals being magnetized by current, I twice asked you specifically about
electron magnetic dipole moment,

which is unrelated to any particular mineral through which a current has passed. My guess is that you don't know what it is.


I understand the dipole moment just fine as I mentioned there is electrical current on a subatomic level already. So maybe you could explain how an electron is charged first? Nice try though...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Just a little anouncment.

Thunderbolts forum is organizing a electric sun debate set to begin at this stage around mid april.
I encourage anyone that thinks they have what it takes to chime in. I doubt that the critics here can stand up to the scrutiny. Especially when personal attacks and unreferenced claims are not allowed.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Never mind arguing on a forum, how about the Electric Universe people put together a paper and get it peer-reviewed by experts in the field rather than anonymous internet posters?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Never mind arguing on a forum, how about the Electric Universe people put together a paper and get it peer-reviewed by experts in the field rather than anonymous internet posters?


Maybe because it's already been done and if people would do a little research they would know that.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Can you link me to some papers that have been peer-reviewed and published, then?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Can you link me to some papers that have been peer-reviewed and published, then?


Nope sorry if you were truly interested you would have already found them. I am not posting anymore links in this thread as there is already a ton.You'll have to do your own research.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by john_bmth
Can you link me to some papers that have been peer-reviewed and published, then?


Nope sorry if you were truly interested you would have already found them. I am not posting anymore links in this thread as there is already a ton.You'll have to do your own research.

A google search turned up nothing other than the usual gump sites advocating such ideas. If the hypothesis has been developed into a theory then there would be a credible paper trail for all to see. Surely it would be easy to link me up to published papers that have been peer-reviewed, as it would make it a fairly open and shut case, no?





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join