The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 3
55
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


But something has to be creating the gravitational force. I really don't believe that planetary bodies are just sitting out in the middle of nothing(space) which causes it's gravity. If that were the case then satellites that we send out would have there own gravity, even though it would be very small. Unless of course we are falling through space.




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


According to the standard model our sun was not created by accretion like all other planets and stellar bodies. Can you imagine that? Hydrogen decided to pull itself together by some magic without significant assistance from heavy elements.

Another scam is how the standard model claims that elements dispersed from a supernova does not originate from the star's composition but was magically (transmutated) made during the event. At the core of supernovas we always see heavy elements such as iron, nickel, and silicon.

I call it a scam because there is a pattern and it suggests intentional cover-up of valid scientific observations. For what purpose? To keep the truth about fusion power hidden.

I believe the electric model is more accurate but lacks consideration of possible cold fusion reactions occurring in the Sun's core. Modern scientific experiments by the U.S. Navy have proven cold fusion reactions as a reality. We now know that low energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a cold fusion) can take place when hydrogen is absorbed by metal. (The metal's atomic structure has gaps which hydrogen atoms can fit through resulting in confinement.) Atoms forced together fuse, transmutate and emit enormous amounts of energy.

According to flawed standard model; it requires millions of degrees for nuclear fusion and cold fusion is impossible.

An iron/nickel rich Sun will have a molten core and metallic lattice from which it can confine hydrogen atoms. Therefore, cold fusion reactions should be considered in the model especially where transmutation of elements is concerned.

When solid metal absorbs hydrogen atoms we know it can become brittle resulting in fissures and failure of atom confinement in the local area. Physical properties for molten metal should not deviate drastically.

There is some visual evidence supporting hydrogen absorption by the Sun. Physical observations such as fissures, temporary solid and liquid formations(waves, stable persistent structures) have been seen. See thesurfaceofthesun.com... for details.

Water vapor has also been observed in sunspots and is related to sunspot activity.

So, we have low energy nuclear reactions from molten metal and water / hydrogen. If the logic holds true, it should theoretically be possible to make a simple reactor with an induction coil and metal immersed in water under pressure. If transmutation occurs the expelled gas may actually be highly energetic Helium3. This should be an incentive to maintain the gas under pressure and ionized so it can burn as fuel. As a side note: sulfur can be used as an additive to protect the metal from oxidation.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

Yes, they do have their own gravity. So do I, so do you. But as you said, it is a very small force because we have a very small mass. We are falling through space, falling around the Sun. Our speed keeps us from falling into it. Satellites and the Moon are falling around the Earth.

[edit on 12/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker

I looked it up and it turns out your wrong about the EU Model being a mere hypothesis.

From: en.wikipedia.org...

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EU does exactly this. There goes half your argument.

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

It is not. It is an example how people strongly believe one thing as a fact about science then later it is found that their 'facts' cannot hold true all the time in every situation, therefore making the "fact" very subjective.

The reasoning that "Each has its own merits, and can stands alone within its own paradigm and field of study." is irreverent.

I do not believe in a Grand Unifying Field Theory of Everything.

You say, "Why is gravity so weak? Compared to, say....magnetism?"

I have pondered this. It makes no logical since to me. Let me ask you, Why is it if gravity compared to magnetism is so weak can it hold all the planets in orbit? We know everything is made of energy at it's core and that energy is never destroyed it only changes form. If everything is made up of energy, then why can't everything have it's own magnetic field thus acting on everything else's magnetic field?

Since magnetism is proven to be thousands of times stronger than gravity, wouldn't magnetism make more since? No one yet has ever been able to explain what gravity actually is.. Could it be that the effect we call gravity is actually nothing more than an interaction of magnetism through the energy all things are made of?

(BTW, this is My theory above, I am not saying I heard this in any EU video, but EU started me thinking about it.)

I don't like the EU model because it is simpler. I am not looking for dare I say it.. Occams Razor (that you scientific types are so fond of).

I like it because it can explain things your current model fail to explain. This is where all model theories start that have overshadowed the theories of the past.

"I am a non scientist. That's Uneducated idiot to you scientific types"




[edit on 16-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

Yes, they do have their own gravity. So do I, so do you. But as you said, it is a very small force because we have a very small mass. We are falling through space, falling around the Sun. Our speed keeps us from falling into it. Satellites and the Moon are falling around the Earth.

[edit on 12/16/2009 by Phage]


Not only that but everybody's and everything's gravitational field is infinite according to the theory, it approaches zero but never ever reaches absolute zero.

Another example of how everything/everyone is connected and influences everything else in very subtle ways.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In case of Sun, you just can't explain how these mammoth amounts of energy can flow into the Sun, highly localized, and not manifest themselves... Where are the hot spots on the poles? Until you find an answer, feel free to shut down this pseudo-science thread.


Yeah, actually I can.

Oh, and if you'd like an image of these inflows visibly manifesting due to the current load, here's a good example:





This is getting pathetic. The picture you link to is NOT a picture of the Sun. The article you link to doesn't provide an explanation of the absence of the hot spots either.

Enough of this voodoo.

Edit to say: the article mentions spherical symmetry against which you argue.
Duh.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In case of Sun, you just can't explain how these mammoth amounts of energy can flow into the Sun, highly localized, and not manifest themselves... Where are the hot spots on the poles? Until you find an answer, feel free to shut down this pseudo-science thread.


Yeah, actually I can.

Oh, and if you'd like an image of these inflows visibly manifesting due to the current load, here's a good example:





This is getting pathetic. The picture you link to is NOT a picture of the Sun. The article you link to doesn't provide an explanation of the absence of the hot spots either.

Enough of this voodoo.


It does, you just don't understand it.

Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment, however the hourglass shape is seen over and over again in space, and is a perfect example of a plasma z-pinch in action.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment


...so these are just fantasy...

And what "moment" is it? This is a crucial part of your pseudo-theory, and you just shrug off plain visible facts that are incompatible with it?


however the hourglass shape is seen over and over again in space, and is a perfect example of a plasma z-pinch in action


"hourglass, as you say it, or cylindrical symmetry is present in great many phenomena involving string magnetic fields in stars



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
No, I don't think so. For the current law of gravitation to hold up our masses should be able to keep us anchored to where we are at, where ever we are at in space.

It is also contradicting the fact that "gravity" can be created by centripetal force. Which really throws a wrench in to the theory of relativity because that would mean the earth spinning actually creates the gravity which keeps us on the ground. Which means it has nothing to do with the mass of the object. Which would also bring up the question of why does the earth rotate?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
No, I don't think so. For the current law of gravitation to hold up our masses should be able to keep us anchored to where we are at, where ever we are at in space.


There are no anchors.


Which really throws a wrench in to the theory of relativity because that would mean the earth spinning actually creates the gravity which keeps us on the ground.


It's safe to say that you know nothing of theory of relativity.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment


...so these are just fantasy...

And what "moment" is it? This is a crucial part of your pseudo-theory, and you just shrug off plain visible facts that are incompatible with it?


however the hourglass shape is seen over and over again in space, and is a perfect example of a plasma z-pinch in action


"hourglass, as you say it, or cylindrical symmetry is present in great many phenomena involving string magnetic fields in stars


If you were more familiar with plasma in general you wouldn't be asking these questions.

The plasma torus surrounding Earth for example is not visible, yet we know its there.

Plasma does not visibly manifest itself until the current density reaches a certain level.

This scaling applies to all sizes of plasma.

Just because we can't see it doesn't mean its not there.

As for the hourglass shape, it is a standard shape for z-pinch morphology. This is a well known behavior of charged plasma. It is not well explained in standard models at all. In fact its a work of pure fiction relying on invisible dynamos that have never been proven to actually exist.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

I don't understand why gravity would keep us "anchored". Gravity is a force. Forces do not "anchor" things, they move things.

"Centripetal force" is not a separate force at all. It is a result of inertia and circular motion. Inertia, like gravity, is a property of matter.

The Earth rotates because of the retention of angular momentum from the time it was formed. Its rotation is gradually slowing due to tidal drag from the Moon (yes, gravity again).



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you were more familiar with plasma in general you wouldn't be asking these questions.


I'm not asking "questions". I'm asking for proof of your "theory" and you provide none. And oh yeah, I strongly doubt that you are more "familiar" with plasma than my humble person.


The plasma torus surrounding Earth for example is not visible, yet we know its there.


...because we observe it via other means. Again, the influx of energy you are trying to postulate cannot remain invisible by your own argument about corona (which is visible). Your theory contains severe internal contradictions and you just can't come to terms with it.


Plasma does not visibly manifest itself until the current density reaches a certain level.


Read the above -- corona is visible, yet, the current density on the poles should be thousands of times higher, with no visible effect! What kind of bull is that?


As for the hourglass shape, it is a standard shape for z-pinch morphology. This is a well known behavior of charged plasma. It is not well explained in standard models at all.


...because there is nothing to explain -- it does not exist around the Sun.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm not asking "questions". I'm asking for proof of your "theory" and you provide none. And oh yeah, I strongly doubt that you are more "familiar" with plasma than my humble person.


Ok, you provide me proof magnetic dynamos are real, such as a lab experiment, and I'll provide lab experiments that support an electrically driven sun. - Considering I've spent years of personal time studying plasma cosmology, I'd wager I have a slightly better understanding of what plasma is and does than you do.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
...because we observe it via other means. Again, the influx of energy you are trying to postulate cannot remain invisible by your own argument about corona (which is visible). Your theory contains severe internal contradictions and you just can't come to terms with it.

Read the above -- corona is visible, yet, the current density on the poles should be thousands of times higher, with no visible effect! What kind of bull is that?



Yes it can remain invisible. It's called dark mode plasma. Read about it. The Earth is surrounded by it. Particle acceleration does not occur in the plasma until it reaches the corona. Heat does not necessarily produce light. The corona is millions of K in temperature while the visible surface of the Sun is only around 6000k - again, such temperature differences are explained away with fanciful nonsense in the standard model of the Sun. The corona is not the brightly light luminous photosphere of the Sun, its the halo around the Sun we see during an eclipse.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
...because there is nothing to explain -- it does not exist around the Sun.


yes, yes it does.

btw, the existence of a corona at all is problematic for the standard model, while it is to be expected in the electrical model. Also, since energy is arriving from outside the Sun, the corona is expected to be hotter than the surface of the Sun in an electrical model.





[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Basically, General relativity, states that space time is curved due to mass, momentum, and energy in it. In theory it causes space time to wrap around the object that is moving. The problem is that it is still a theory and it really doesn't explain much outside of our earth.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
No, I don't think so. For the current law of gravitation to hold up our masses should be able to keep us anchored to where we are at, where ever we are at in space.

It is also contradicting the fact that "gravity" can be created by centripetal force. Which really throws a wrench in to the theory of relativity because that would mean the earth spinning actually creates the gravity which keeps us on the ground. Which means it has nothing to do with the mass of the object. Which would also bring up the question of why does the earth rotate?


I used to think something similar when I was about 8 years old. Gravity Is not created by centripetal force. Artificial gravity is created and you have to be inside the object for it to work. Inside the spinning object is trying to throw you outside but cannot so it sticks you to the floor. If you tried the same thing on a space station but were walking on the outside while it spun you would simply be thrown off, the same way Earth would throw you off if it were not for real gravity. Artificial gravity is an illusion.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


But There is not a magnetic field surrounding the space shuttle, and for the theory of general relativity to hold up the space-time must be bent due to the mass energy and momentum of the space shuttle spinning which should cause, according to theory, space-time to wrap around the space shuttle keeping you firmly planted on the outside of the space shuttle. In theory at least.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yes it can remain invisible. It's called dark mode plasma. Read about it. The Earth is surrounded by it. Particle acceleration does not occur in the plasma until it reaches the corona.


Time after time, I'm asking you about the magic points where the huge current supposedly hits the surface of the Sun. No answer.


The corona is not the brightly light luminous photosphere of the Sun, its the halo around the Sun we see during an eclipse.


...so surely we must see structure around the poles indicating injection of current... but we don't.


btw, the existence of a corona at all is problematic for the standard model, while it is to be expected in the electrical model


Plasma physics is notoriously difficult. There are a combination of factors that are thought to lead to corona heating.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yes it can remain invisible. It's called dark mode plasma. Read about it. The Earth is surrounded by it. Particle acceleration does not occur in the plasma until it reaches the corona.


Time after time, I'm asking you about the magic points where the huge current supposedly hits the surface of the Sun. No answer.


The corona is not the brightly light luminous photosphere of the Sun, its the halo around the Sun we see during an eclipse.


...so surely we must see structure around the poles indicating injection of current... but we don't.


btw, the existence of a corona at all is problematic for the standard model, while it is to be expected in the electrical model


Plasma physics is notoriously difficult. There are a combination of factors that are thought to lead to corona heating.


The current flow into the Sun arrives at the corona, which is where we see the highest heating.

See this image for a visible manifestation of exactly what I'm talking about:



In this image the charge density of the inflows is high enough that the plasma is visibly manifesting itself for us to view. In our Sun, those currents are dark mode and invisible to us because the charge density is not high enough for them to visibly manifest.

You keep saying this can't exist, I say it can. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Our sensors have not measured the current density at the poles of the Sun, therefore the models in question remain viable as alternative theories until such time as they are disproved through observation.

Given that the electric models explain more with less, Occam's razor dictates they are more likely right than the standard model.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Here is a scale that shows the various voltage to current density ratios required for plasma to visibly manifest itself.






top topics
 
55
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join