It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by W3RLIED2

SOHO has been teaching us something about a mechanism which can account for coronal heating with a model involving localized magnetic activity. Magnetic reconnection, the same process which drives a lot of activity in our own magnetosphere.

Observations with high spatial resolution show that the surface of the Sun is covered by the weak magnetic fields concentrated in small patches of opposite polarity (magnet carpet). These magnetic concentrations are believed to be a footpoints of individual magnetic flux tubes carrying electric currents.

Recent observations of this "magnetic carpet" show a very dynamical evolution: photospheric magnetic fields constantly move around, interact with each other, dissipate and emerge on very short period of time. Magnetic reconnection between magnetic field of opposite polarity may change topology of the field and release magnetic energy. The reconnection process will also result the dissipation of electric currents which will transform electric energy into the heat.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by Phage

Now if we could only figure out how to turn heat directly into electric energy and have it be feasible as in being able to wrap a nuclear reactor with it and get super electrical output. Way more efficient. I know we use Thermo-couplers(maybe not what they are called) that uses heat converted into electricity to power our satellites that we send out to explore further into the solar system, although that uses a radio-active source to produce the heat.

Now if we could find a way to convert our body heat into electricity that would be sick.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:42 PM
Edit - Double post.

Please disregard.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Actually, erm, umm, it is my understanding that what you are looking at is quite possibly a cross section of an ionized doughnut gas ring around the star.

Your argument could be best supported by an old friend, Mr. Birkeland. Those currents are invisible too.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Once you look it up, then it becomes apparent that the "Electric Universe" concept, even as an imagined model to attempt to describe something, is no more than a mere hypothesis. It has no resemblance to actual theories, as defined.

Nicely put, though even to call it a hypothesis may be a bit of a stretch. Electric universe theory proceeds by magical analogy of the 'as above, so below' variety. I mean this quite literally: its founders extrapolate from the laboratory scale to the literally cosmic, completely ignoring the practical problems that arise when you expand the ambit of transient* effects governed by inverse square laws by 27 orders of magnitude.

That's not science; it's magic.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

Where do you get the idea that EU believes that "'as above, so below'"?

I am no expert on EU, I am just learning about it, but so far, I have never heard anyone say anything like that.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:27 AM
This a debate which will go on for a while I think. What is that quote again about truth? Oh yeah,

" All truth go through 3 stages. First it is ridiculed.Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. ~ Schopenhauer 1788-1860 "

Are we at the ridicule stage for this truth? Perhaps, perhaps not. I certainly don't have the background to critique the arguments of either side and I doubt anyone here does. I have read each and have to say that there are compelling arguments on both sides. What I DO know is the fact that we DON'T know the half of what's out there.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:28 AM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I'm telling you.

EU 'theory' proceeds by visual corresponence. Like these pictures of a mad Victorian scientist playing with his ball that mnemeth1 thinks prove something about astrophysics.

Essentially, the thinking goes like this: 'When I magnetize my metal balls and put them in an electric field, I get all these sparks and rings and flares that look just like what I see when I squint at Saturn and the Sun through my telescope. Therefore what's happening on Saturn and the Sun must be the same thing that happens when I magnetize my balls.'

There it is. As above, so below--or, if you prefer, as below, so above. Either way, it's balls above, balls below.

mnemeth1: you're the one making the assertions, so kindly stop wriggling and provide the evidence you've been asked for. Nobody's patience is infinite.

[edit on 17/12/09 by Astyanax]

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

I still think that is a cross section of a torus, and not a good example. Looking at these photos wrong has led to the impression of gravitational "anchors" and "massless black holes" which confuses the issue even further.

If there is a gravitational "anchor" for Sol, it is A. Sag. It amazes me more that it is a star nursery. Therein lies your answers to the mystery. The interstellar medium may feed it, but its secret of creation lie nearer the core.

Chucking the black hole robes for the minute, a superdense mass rotating at high velocity sucks in material at the equator and spits it out perpendicular to the accretion disk and from its poles, quite opposite from that of the EU model of a star. This is where the elements are created. I havn't figured out protons, but I will someday.

Going back to A. Sag., I find it curious that the distance from Sol to A. Sag. is the same as Earth's precession! Even more so that it moves one degree every 72 years, this in fact makes me marvel speechless.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:37 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

I haven't seen anything that blatantly simplistic in any of the videos I have seen about EU so far.

But let me ask you.. Isn't that how our present standard model started - by visual observations? Seems to me I remember lots of guys with telescopes through the years making visual observations about the universe that was accepted as real science.

I am not seeing the difference.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:50 AM
reply to post by buddhasystem

They are visible because their parts undergo fusion. Helium as a product is high.

But you should already know that. Aren't you the Phd who works on one of those giant accelerators? Isn't that the point, to get the plasma to fuse hydrogen?

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Astyanax

I haven't seen anything that blatantly simplistic in any of the videos I have seen about EU so far.

But let me ask you.. Isn't that how our present standard model started - by visual observations? Seems to me I remember lots of guys with telescopes through the years making visual observations about the universe that was accepted as real science.

I am not seeing the difference.

That was exactly the point being argued here, where are the visual observations with regard to current inflow of the sun:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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

Well if there aren't any observations of the sun to demonstrate that these supposed inflows exist, and there's no answer as to why we can't see them, you wouldn't be wrong to assume they are probably not there.

So that's why we don't assume that the effects seen on balls in a lab (which are nothing like the sun except for the fact they are spherical) are present with the sun because we don't have observations of the sun to confirm the "hypothesis".

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:13 AM
Err, whatever Phage said, he's right most of the time.

My Birthday yesterday, hangover.

Sounds like a load of pants to me compared to accepted scientific theory.
Don't even know why I came on here today, brain hurts, going for a smoke.

Peace out!

[edit to add] I really will look into this properly when I'm completely sober

[edit on 17-12-2009 by nik1halo]

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:34 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yeah, I get your point. But I'm not the expert here. I will leave that for mnemeth1 to answer.

My reply was to Astyanax because he said, "'When I magnetize my metal balls and put them in an electric field, I get all these sparks and rings and flares that LOOK JUST LIKE what I SEE when I squint at Saturn and the Sun through my telescope. Therefore what's happening on Saturn and the Sun must be the same thing that happens when I magnetize my balls.'"

He is saying here that EU is making visual observations and simply because visual observations are all they are, that's not good enough.

Thus my asking isn't that where all standard model theory started.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:34 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by Chembreather
. . .those people cant be trusted WackerBoy. . .

You are being given ONE pass on that remark, because I am aware that English is not your primary language.

Thank you I guess, what does it mean ?

My point was that the science have a funny way of being 'dead surten' until some one proves it wrong, and it happends all the time, I bet you a dime they have more wrongs than rights, it is clearly proven too, and stating Facts after the ClimateGate scandle, should be done with a warning label : 'Might be madeup'.

Electric Sun Verified

“Is it likely that any astonishing new developments are lying in wait for us? Is it possible that the cosmology of 500 years hence will extend as far beyond our present beliefs as our cosmology goes beyond that of Newton?”
—Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe

NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly.

Voyagers 1 and 2 (V1 and V2 above) reached the boundary of the Sun’s influence in 2005 and 2007, respectively, taking measurements as they left the solar system. Before IBEX, there was only data from these two points at the edge of the solar system. While exciting and valuable, the data they provided about this region raised more questions than they resolved. IBEX has filled in the entire interaction region, revealing surprising details completely unpredicted by any theories. This shows some of the fine detail of the ribbon in the blow-up section.

The expectations of NASA scientists are not being met because their shock front model is incorrect. The boundary that Voyager has reached is more complex and structured than a mechanical impact.” —Wal Thornhill, September 2006.

More incorrectness from Nasa? Got to be a first...
And they really do need their mainstream theories to be the fact of things, cuase if their work is useless, no fundings...

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:41 AM

Originally posted by grey580
The whole electric universe theory is highly interesting. I'd like to see alot more money thrown into this sort of research.

And IMO there is also the most exciting aspect of a electric universe. The possibility of tapping into that electricity for us to use for free.

well, I think that is the main problem, free energy for all is not profitable for certain people (they call themselves 'elite') so they are pushing gravity only universe theory... and anyone that is questioning this outdated and obsolete dogma is aggressively ridiculed, silenced, 'debunked' by pseudo-debunkers and pseudo-scientists... or killed

I think that this J.P. Morgan's (Tesla's investor) quote says it all:

'I have nothing to sell except antennas...'

Tesla vision of the universe was very close to the Electric Universe Theory, so by proclaiming him crazy, confiscating all of his materials, burning his laboratory, dismantling his 'World System' and pushing Einstein's plagiarized garbage we have been going backwards for 100 of years...

instead of clean planet we are on the verge of destroying it as a consequence of a few people's greed and lust for power

great thread OP

hopefully the Electric/Plasma Universe Theory will finally penetrate thick human closed minds, and we can get out of the dark ages we are still living in



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:55 AM
Let me get this straight; Electric Sun theory says that stars are just giant balls of lightning that are held together by their own magnetism?

Whereas; currently accepted theories believe that giant molecular clouds collapse in on themselves to begin fusion and thus, star formation.

To me an electric sun would propose that lightning and electricity is actually plasma as opposed to plasma being a super-heated gas.

I read somewhere earlier that if I just assume everything is electric it becomes much easier...

Please, explain this to me.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:17 AM
Oh well this beats another ufo thread,interesting never heard of this something I'm gonna look into


posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:29 AM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You can dub the youtube video with ANY amount of new age music, but that doesn't make this silliness into science.

Science is a philosophy. People formulate theories and try to see if they can be validated (Not Proven mind you) by observation.

Some of Newtons "laws" fall apart in the face of Relativity. Some Relativity falls apart in the face of Quantum Physics. String theory deals with strings that are so small there is no way at present we can see them to observe their behavior.. yet.. it is considered Science.

Just as Newtons laws are not absolute, and Relativity is not absolute to say that the Electric Model is not science just because if fails to explain everything in your opinion is foolishness.

By your own argument, If you believe this, then you must believe that Newton Laws and Relativity are fairy tales also.

The Electric Model IS valid science because the theory does make many observations that seem to be plausible and in fact brings understanding to aspects of cosmology that the present accepted models fail to account for.

no, science is not philosophy, otherwise it would be called philosophy.

a theory is called a theory because it is backed be repeatable experimentation by 3rd parties where yes, we can actually see the results, as well as many other bits of 'proof'.

so far, electric universe fails on all of these fronts, and anyone who believes in such a flawed and made up is just stupid. The FSM is more plausible.

Deal with it.

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:09 AM
OK, I'm back and I'm sober

This is a new theory to me, so I had to do a little research before I could postulate an opinion, but it seemed interesting, so I thought I'd look into it.

From what I've read from I don't see any evidence that this model is any more reasonable that the classic one. If anything, it is based on much less evidence. In the introducton area, it states that the classic model is based on flawed theories guess work, as no practical experiments can be performed, basically saying that Newton, Einstein and Hawking are all wrong, but this only goes to disprove their own theory just as much.

Basically, the classic model is based on the theories of some of the most intelligent people the world has ever known, but their own theory is not backed by such enigmatic minds.

Therefore, without irrefutable evidence of EU theory, I believe I will continue to follow the classic theory, as it is based on previously solid theories, such as Newton's theory of motion and relativity, which have been proven to be correct innumerous times in the past.

I'll talk to a cosmologist friend of mine and get his view on it. He's usually very open minded about this type of stuff, but I'll bet he calls BS on this one.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in