The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab
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.


How about posting some of this evidence for planetary expansion and the transmutation of elements in the core due to absorption of gas. I have never heard of this.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by watcher73]




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab
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.


I also think there is truth to the Expanding Earth theory.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:27 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?


I just read the entire thread and this exchange of ideas more than any other reinforces to me the silliness of the electric universe explanations. To paraphrase this dialog:

"The sun is electric"
"Really? Prove it?"
"Well, I can't prove it right now as it's not electric at the moment"

Alrighty then, maybe when you CAN prove it would be a good time to start a thread titled "The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed", but it seems premature now.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thanks for the reference to the BAUT forum, looks like somebody got creamed there... Good reading...


Yes I was reading that too and it's great reading, someone did get creamed there so it takes guts to link to that.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sphinx551
 


Thank you for that, I forgot that one when I was describing those who still think the earth is flat.

Should add, also, that besides flat earth, and expanding Earth, and hollow Earth, there is 6,000-year-old Earth too.

Expanding Earth is about as likely as me winning the PowerBall lottery on Saturday. In fact, I think I'll buy two tickets this time, now that I think of it, because the odds there are better.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It could be that the planets core has used up all it's fuel and is now no longer able to make a the necessary circuit in order create a magnetic field.

You would have to assume though that planets and satellites are either positive or negative, and the flow through space is a positive or negative. Or a planet could be a ground so to speak.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73



How about posting some of this evidence for planetary expansion and the transmutation of elements in the core due to absorption of gas. I have never heard of this.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by watcher73]


If a reaction occurs in a lab, it can happen in nature too.

U.S. Navy Cold Fusion Research
www.lenr-canr.org...

Earth Expansion (includes other planets)
www.nealadams.com...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by sphinx551
 


Thank you for that, I forgot that one when I was describing those who still think the earth is flat.

Should add, also, that besides flat earth, and expanding Earth, and hollow Earth, there is 6,000-year-old Earth too.

Expanding Earth is about as likely as me winning the PowerBall lottery on Saturday. In fact, I think I'll buy two tickets this time, now that I think of it, because the odds there are better.



Are you mocking me? Are you sarcastic?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sphinx551

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by sphinx551
 


Thank you for that, I forgot that one when I was describing those who still think the earth is flat.

Should add, also, that besides flat earth, and expanding Earth, and hollow Earth, there is 6,000-year-old Earth too.

Expanding Earth is about as likely as me winning the PowerBall lottery on Saturday. In fact, I think I'll buy two tickets this time, now that I think of it, because the odds there are better.



Are you mocking me? Are you sarcastic?


Some people forget the most basic principle of the scientific method... OBSERVATION! Just because a model is convenient for the religious doesn't mean it is wrong. I have seen brilliant scientists discredited in a similar manner.

For the record, the expansion model I support is incompatible with flat Earth, hollow Earth, and 6k yr old Earth. We are talking about billions of years, and an increase of mass + gravity.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

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.


Dude, you are So Funny. You are the one who told me to look the words up. I humbly did as you asked. You don't like the definition I found - it doesn't fit your nice tidy view of the world so you bash me for playing games when I did nothing of the sort.

I got two words for you buddy. Grow Up ! I won't respond to your drivel again, you are Not worth my time.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab

Originally posted by sphinx551

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by sphinx551
 

Expanding Earth is about as likely as me winning the PowerBall lottery on Saturday. In fact, I think I'll buy two tickets this time, now that I think of it, because the odds there are better.

Are you mocking me? Are you sarcastic?

Some people forget the most basic principle of the scientific method... OBSERVATION!

For the record, the expansion model I support is incompatible with flat Earth, hollow Earth, and 6k yr old Earth. We are talking about billions of years, and an increase of mass + gravity.

Actually there are observations that support an increase in the Earth's mass but I think it's a stretch to call it "expanding" though technically I guess it is.

The ice cores have shown about 40,000 tons of cosmic debris rain on the Earth per year and this has happened for the thousands of years the ice cores go back. While that sounds like a lot and over millions of years it sounds like more, it's still not much relative to the total mass of the Earth. Maybe a fraction of 1 percent increase in mass over billions of years?

Source

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I always find it funny when people parade pseudoscience in front of a forum full of laymen and expect it to change the world. It's not likely that you'll find many Ph.D level physicists in ATS (and if you do, please, have them come forward) to actually verify, review or try to analyze the data. So, what we're left with is one or two people who can quote a website (without really understanding the math or science behind the phenomena) and take it as gospel. John Lear-ism at its best.

Granted, I'm no astrophysicist, but I've been reviewing a lot of the debate over this and it doesn't look like it's taken seriously in the scientific and academic community for a reason.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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?


I just read the entire thread and this exchange of ideas more than any other reinforces to me the silliness of the electric universe explanations. To paraphrase this dialog:

"The sun is electric"
"Really? Prove it?"
"Well, I can't prove it right now as it's not electric at the moment"

Alrighty then, maybe when you CAN prove it would be a good time to start a thread titled "The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed", but it seems premature now.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thanks for the reference to the BAUT forum, looks like somebody got creamed there... Good reading...


Yes I was reading that too and it's great reading, someone did get creamed there so it takes guts to link to that.


I have plenty of observational evidence supporting my postion, much more than standard theory does.

I asked for laboratory proof a magnetic dynamo, I don't see any yet.

Of course, you didn't bother to read any of the material I posted, look at any of the video documentaries, or read any of the web site links, so I can understand your confusion about which model actually presents proof and which model is a complete work of fiction.





[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SorensDespair
Granted, I'm no astrophysicist, but I've been reviewing a lot of the debate over this and it doesn't look like it's taken seriously in the scientific and academic community for a reason.


The scientific community has its own list of dogmas to adhere to and problems await for any scientist that goes against the establishment. Fortunately there are a few brave ones out there or we wouldn't have the opportunity to make this discussion.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by platoslab
 


The only dogma is that of skepticism. Science requires skepticism.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Interesting thread OP. I am learning physics in college now.

However, right now I think I would rather learn the standard physics first, then come back and learn another model.

Thanks for the new ideas though.




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SorensDespair
reply to post by platoslab
 


The only dogma is that of skepticism. Science requires skepticism.


When a scientific model makes assumptions not supported by observation and others decide to follow it as the gospel truth. That is dogma.

For example, the models explaining the core of our Sun is theoretical yet many are satisfied that we already have the answer and feel no need to test or review alternatives.

You expect to sit back and wait for an authority figure to tell you their understanding when all the information is just a click away. Information, by the way, written by scientists in english. Some of it may be technical at times but there is nothing stopping you from learning the material at hand.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab
You expect to sit back and wait for an authority figure to tell you their understanding when all the information is just a click away. Information, by the way, written by scientists in english. Some of it may be technical at times but there is nothing stopping you from learning the material at hand.


The problem is that it is a click away, and those who aren't in the know think one click is as good as another.

And yes, it's written in English, but without a solid understanding of theoretical physics, those who read it will take one bit of info as valid as another.

And I've taken plenty of university level math and physics courses (although I did change my major) to understand the basic concepts.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
To add further fuel to the EU theory. Some time ago some satellites detected ribbons connecting the earth and sun.
I seem to remember this being on ATS some time ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by grey580]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I still don't think any one has been able to explain the fact that the Sun's surface is about 6,000 K and the corona is about 2,000,000 K and sometimes higher.

How do you explain that energy coming from the core of the sun and spreading outwards towards the surface, and then through all the way to the upper atmosphere (the actual corona) is so heated? If the heat emminates from the center then the surface would be much hotter, not the corona. But this is not the case.

Using the electric model explains this, very satisfactorally. Electricity is arriving at the poles of the sun and causing atmospheric heating. Which is much more logical and sound reasoning.

Astrophysicists claim that the fusion model of the sun has been tested in the laboratory. That isn't entirely accurate. What they should be saying is that each step for hydrogen to helium reactions has been tested individually, the whole process has never been achieved. Continuous hydrogen to helium fusion has not been obtained. Even Nasa scientists admit this.


The electric model makes much more sense. Plasma cosmologists are on the cutting edge of space science. The standard model fails to explain many things and the electric model should be considered seriously.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


I'm not biased anyway I'm simply thinking of other things that are observable or measurable that could fit into the EU theory. After reading up on the Tokamak reactor it doesn't sound like it is very sound way of producing energy.

I don't know the thing about it all is that it is all theory the Fusion Model and the EU Model and nobody really knows for sure.





new topics
 
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join