The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 4
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


As I said, corona has a lower current density and yet it's visible.
You also contradict the article you quote, in that the latter says there is spherical symmetry.




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
The whole electric universe theory is highly interesting.


And so is Plasma Theory:
www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

There are so many different theories about the universe.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

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


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


i'd like to know what structure you see when current is injected into a neon light bulb, a fluorescent lght bulb, plasma globe...

How about you show us these magic points and structures caused by the injection of current since you claim they should exist on the sun they should exist any where current is injected into a gas.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Anyone know where the picture of the star with the giant sunspot is at? It covered about half the star and was on thunderbolts or holoscience I believe.

Also does anyone know if current theory supports the formation of such giant sunspots?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 

We do not have any way to resolve the disk of any star other than our own, much less sunspots on it.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




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



Satellite observations indicate electrical current originates from the core. We can attribute the corona's high heat to nanoflares and z-pinch effect. According to Nasa, nanoflares are made of mostly gas and they have chosen to ignore the presence of iron in their data.

With the Sun's strong gravitational field any amount of iron will have a problem reaching the corona. That means there must be more iron underneath the plasma layer which further supports an electric Sun model.

Edit: Iron ion emissions thesurfaceofthesun.com...


[edit on 16-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by platoslab
 


Well the other thing that supports the electric universe theory is the fact that planetary bodies have magnetic fields. In order to make a magnet you have to apply an electrical charge to a metal that has magnetic properties. Heat is the enemy of magnetism so something has to be constantly charging the iron in the core.

Edit to add -

Or some other metal with magnetic properties.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73
Anyone know where the picture of the star with the giant sunspot is at? It covered about half the star and was on thunderbolts or holoscience I believe.

Also does anyone know if current theory supports the formation of such giant sunspots?


Standard theory of sunspots is a total joke.

It relies heavily on ficticious "dynamo" theory, which has no basis in reality or any lab based experimentation.

Sun spots in an electric model are well explained and one can easily replicate them in a lab with a terella.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

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



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
We do not have any way to resolve the disk of any star other than our own, much less sunspots on it.


antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Doppler imaging - the use of slight changes in color caused by the rotation of the star - was used to create this false-color image.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by watcher73]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:13 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.


Maybe they are diamagnetic.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73
Also does anyone know if current theory supports the formation of such giant sunspots?


There is an interesting relationship between the amount of water vapor detected on sunspots and sunspot activity
solar-center.stanford.edu... . I suspect the electric sun's molten core (iron, nickel, and silicon) is absorbing hydrogen atoms resulting in a cooler and less active area .

With hydrogen atoms confined in the iron/nickel/silicon lattice it should result in low energy nuclear reactions where elements like hydrogen fuse to form helium. Ejection is the next cycle where byproducts are released and travel through the outer plasma region.

Edit: Fissures on the sun is a good example of possible hydrogen loading cycle. (thesurfaceofthesun.com...) An observation that destroys the standard sun model.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 

Ok. I was thinking in terms of an actual image. That's a model based on light curves.

But that is a big "spot". It's pretty hard to do anything but speculate about what actually caused it. And there seems to be plenty of that.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


They are also considered dead planets. Or maybe they lack the material that creates the magnetism. There are a multitude of reasons why they could lack a magnetic field, or maybe they stopped producing the necessary reaction for them to have a charge.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

Dead. Right. Their iron cores have cooled and no longer produce a unified magnetic field.

But it seems that Mars once did have a such a field since there are remnants in various places. What would make it go away (within the electric model, that is)?


[edit on 12/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
There is also the possibility that both the universe is electrified and the sun is a self sustaining reaction and the sunspots created allows more "fuel" to be added to the reaction, hence why the sun gets hotter or outputs more when there are more sunspots and gets cooler when less sunspots are not present.

SunSpots could actually be holes in the sun that are essential to its life. I don't know, like it has been said before it is all speculation, but that is how science gets done when somebody finally hits on something that might be plausible.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The magnetic charge could have disapated and since the cores of the planets are dead they are no longer reheating the material to a degree necessary for them to be recharged.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 

Oh.
I guess I just misunderstood the cause of magnetospheres in the electric model.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


As someone else said, this is getting pathetic.

IF you wish to play the semantics game, based on a Wiki article about the true definition of theory, in a scientific sense, and a 'hunch' or "theory" used in the vernacular sense, then you have refuted nothing of my argument, despite your protestations to the contrary.

The rest of your post showed the same fallible conclusions, drawn from the nonsense that is being spouted by these EU proponents. This is the kind of New Agey, touchy-feely Looking for Mr. Goodbar stuff that makes laughing stocks of such people...NOT science.

I find this in the same category as those who think the Earth is hollow, those who think the Earth is flat (amazing, but there is still that bit of insanity out there...some do it as a lark, tongue-in-cheek, but others actually believe it) and, finally, it fits in with the notion of some giant old white dude with a big beard in the sky, who knows everything everyone does (and I'm not talking about Santa).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@@ For the person...(OP) who questioned the origination of the idea of the "Big Bang", and claimed it was just a theologian who was trying to merge science and theism...wrong.


Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.


en.wikipedia.org...

Who is Georges Lemaitre? Well, here's where the people who wish to stick this fallacy of the "electric universe" down peop0le's throats use a very old tactic, as seen by the OP to me. Monsieur Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest. BUT, to suggest that that was his motivation for the Big Bang hypothesis is more ridiculous and spurious "logic", tortured as it is, in order to attempt to destroy the Big Bang hypothesis' credibility by attacking the man who proposed it. It is a stupid argument.

Let's see, shall we, what Wiki in its infinite and Galactic wisdom has to say (Hey, it's a good enough source for JohnPhoenix, it's good enough for me...and Wiki does undergo rigorous checks and balances...):


Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître
( July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966 ) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven.


Wow!!! A rare Catholic, indeed. A theologian AND an accomplished scientist. Go figure.


In 1925, on his return to Belgium, he became a part-time lecturer at the Catholic University of Leuven. He then began the report which would bring him international fame, published in 1927 in the Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles (Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels), under the title "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" ("A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae"). In this report, he presented his new idea of an expanding Universe (he also derived the "Hubble law" and provided the first observational estimation of the Hubble constant) but not yet that of the primeval atom. Instead, the initial state was taken as Einstein's own finite-size static universe model. Unfortunately, the paper had little impact because the journal in which it was published was not widely read by astronomers outside of Belgium.

en.wikipedia.org...


The paper has little impact. Little impact. In other words, this man was not out grandstanding for the catholic Church, or to attmept what is claimed by the EU proponents. He toiled in relative obscurity, at the time. YOu can bet your bippy that, if the Vatican were behind it, they would have thrown enough money to him to make him more famous.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that his work would have infuriated the Vatican, if it had been widely known. Remember, despite his 'faith' in 'god', I'd guess that his search for scientific knowledge and understanding outweighed all of the religious dogmatic claptrap that had been a part of the Catholic upbringing.

AND, although Einstein rejected (at first) the concept proposed, because it interfered with his (Einstein's) conviction that the Universe was not expanding, he eventually came to see the value in looking at the idea.

You can look up Einstein's fudging of math, to remove the Hubble problem, of red shift in very distant astronomical observations. He called it the "greatest blunder of his life".

Look it up. I probably didn't explain it accurately, mostly from memory.



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


You bring up an interesting topic. Not only is there evidence supporting planetary expansion but it should be expected when you have a massive molten mass of metal absorbing gas atoms. Science experiments around the world have proven transmutation of elements under such conditions.

Transmutation can result in more mass and gravity if given enough time. The video proof regarding Earth expansion should not be surprising. It is unfortunate many choose to simply ignore it because of scientific orthodoxy.





new topics
top topics
 
55
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join