Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 7
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
I read somewhere earlier that if I just assume everything is electric it becomes much easier...

Please, explain this to me.


You'll get 2 different explanations from the 2 sides of the debate, the question is, which one is right?

Don't believe everything you read, on either side of the debate ...look for evidence and verify claims made by checking out sources.

The OP refers to the BAUT forums. If you want to see both sides of the debate argued there it's a good source for technical discussions instead of layperson oversimplifications. But the technical discussions will be over the heads of 98-99% of ATSers, but go ahead and read and judge for yourself:


Originally posted by mnemeth1
The statist clan running the BAUT forums also likes to post mix’n match grab bag pseudo-skeptic claims declaring that the electric sun model has been refuted. Scott has also issued rejoinders to their claims which can be found here.

www.bautforum.com...

Read the BAUT forum claims and Scott's rejoinder to those claims as suggested in the OP.

But if all this stuff is over your head as it will be for many, then what do the experts say? Probably less than 1% of professionals subscribe to Scott's theory, and more than 99% to the mainstream theory. (If you have better stats correct me but I think that's about right). That alone doesn't mean Scott is wrong, but you gotta ask yourself why if his evidence is so good he hasn't been able to persuade a larger percentage of the experts. It's because most experts can see through the flaws so the larger numbers of people who seem to subscribe to his theories tend to NOT be experts such as PhD's in physics, cosmology or electrical engineering.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder

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.


I will never deal with the close minded mainstream garbage (called science) which is based on suppositions, speculations, bad math (one can prove that 1=2 very easily by using infinity in equations) and bad observations (red shift does not equal distance and speed, proven by Halton C. Arp observations of peculiar galaxies)...

excluding electrical force in astrophysics is just like thinking the Earth is flat




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
and more than 99% to the mainstream theory.


there was a time when 99% of scientists claimed that Earth is flat...



[edit on 17-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
and more than 99% to the mainstream theory.


there was a time when 99% of scientists claimed that Earth is flat...



Erastothenes knew earlier than 100BC the Earth was round and he knew almost exactly how big it was. My point is you can examine the evidence he offered in support of his measurements and determine that it's valid. So if you're going to go with the 1% you need evidence. Erastothenes had evidence..

en.wikipedia.org...

He was the first Greek to calculate the circumference of the earth (with remarkable accuracy)


When we ask mnemeth1 for evidence, we get this answer:


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


Well if the claim is that the sun has inflows and the proof is: we have no evidence for that, see the difference?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
and more than 99% to the mainstream theory.


there was a time when 99% of scientists claimed that Earth is flat...



Erastothenes knew earlier than 100BC the Earth was round and he knew almost exactly how big it was. My point is you can examine the evidence he offered in support of his measurements and determine that it's valid. So if you're going to go with the 1% you need evidence. Erastothenes had evidence..

en.wikipedia.org...

He was the first Greek to calculate the circumference of the earth (with remarkable accuracy)


When we ask mnemeth1 for evidence, we get this answer:


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


Well if the claim is that the sun has inflows and the proof is: we have no evidence for that, see the difference?


well, this reminds me about the invisible dark matter, it can't be seen, scientists say: we have no evidence, yet 99% mainstream scientists believe the fantasy...

so, yes, I see the difference... in fact, there is proof of the magnetic ribbons from the Sun:


Originally posted by grey580
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]


magnetic force is also invisible to the naked eye, but that does not mean it doesn't exist...





[edit on 17-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
this reminds me also (sorry for getting off the topic) about LHC that is emulating Big Bang conditions...

how much electric energy is LHC using to recreate Big Bang conditions?

a lot... but still, mainstream scientists exclude this basic force (which is tremendously stronger than gravity, especially on atomic levels) from their faulty theories about the Universe...




[edit on 17-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
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.


Both models (electric-universe and standard) fail to account for accretion of heavy elements like metals which is necessary to trap gas. Gas alone will disperse throughout space unless there are heavy elements present (higher gravitational field) to keep it together. Nasa would like us to believe that heavy metals play an unimportant role in the Sun but I digress.

The Birkeland sun model addresses composition based on the surrounding environment. Every large body in our solar system was once a molten ball of mostly iron/nickel/silicon during formation so why can’t our Sun be subject to the same conditions? It makes much more sense than relying on a theoretical and unstable plasma core. In addition, exploded stars (supernovas) throughout space show an abundance of heavy elements (iron/nickel/silicon) at the core! The standard model tries to explain it away as transmutation but I believe we should apply Occam’s razor on this subject as well.

Satellites have detected iron/nickel/silicon on the surface of the Sun. If we consider the energy required to overcome its gravitational strength, it should be safe to expect more heavy elements at the core. (See thesurfaceofthesun.com... ) This can also result in less metallic content in the outer plasma atmosphere since gravity has a filtration effect.

As a consequence, spectroscopy should give us a false impression of a hydrogen rich – low metal Sun.

Some ions ejected from the core are likely to pass through fine and highly charged metal filaments in the plasma layer resulting in the z-pinch effect. See NASA’a explanation of nanoflares. www.nasa.gov... . They will describe it with a composition of mostly gas and completely ignore metallic content. Actual satellite data tells us more about metallic content and proves its abundance. thesurfaceofthesun.com...

If you have followed my previous posts then you’ll know that molten metal will absorb hydrogen. Under these conditions, all the ingredients to initiate low energy nuclear reactions are present. This is probably what NASA doesn’t want us to know. If we replace the standard model’s plasma core with a liquid metal core and still have fusion products, that means replication by anyone with enough knowledge of electricity is possible. There may be no need for recreating millions of degrees as the standard model requires.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   


red shift does not equal distance and speed, proven by Halton C. Arp observations of peculiar galaxies


This can be better explained by those galaxies being just one over another, without the need for intristic redshift.
Intristic redshift was never observed in nature, but normal redshift is even used in police radars to measure speed.

IMHO, the only alternative cosmology model with some logic behind it is tired light (or intergalactic absorption of light) model.




well, this reminds me about the invisible dark matter, it can't be seen, scientists say: we have no evidence, yet 99% mainstream scientists believe the fantasy...


Its not true that we have no evidence. We have - its gravitational influence.
They dont believe the fantasy, they are still searching for proof.

Dark matter is, contrary to the popular belief here, quite elegant theory, which requires nothing more to explain current observations than presence of additional matter.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab
Every large body in our solar system was once a molten ball of mostly iron/nickel/silicon during formation


This can't possibly be true... Large bodies in our system include Jupiter, Saturn and the like and they were never "balls of molten iron".


In addition, exploded stars (supernovas) throughout space show an abundance of heavy elements (iron/nickel/silicon) at the core!


Certainly, it comes from fusion in conditions well outside of equilibrium observed in "normal" stars.


The standard model tries to explain it away as transmutation but I believe we should apply Occam’s razor on this subject as well.


Occam's razor makes short work of the "electric" nonsense. It slices, it dices, and makes tons of julienne fries out of it.


Satellites have detected iron/nickel/silicon on the surface of the Sun.


... and that's exactly where the fusion process stops, at the iron nucleus, due to the binding energy per nucleon being at the max. Read up on this. This is 100% consistent with fusion model.


If we consider the energy required to overcome its gravitational strength, it should be safe to expect more heavy elements at the core.


Oh please... we would have detected traces of heavier elements in spectra...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



This can't possibly be true... Large bodies in our system include Jupiter, Saturn and the like and they were never "balls of molten iron".


I stand corrected, maybe not molten but heavy elements are expected in their cores. Look up core accretion theory. www.universetoday.com...


Certainly, it comes from fusion in conditions well outside of equilibrium observed in "normal" stars.


You are basically asserting heavier elements like iron can magically float on top of hydrogen when it comes to our Sun. Should we just ignore its intense gravitational strength? No thanks!


... and that's exactly where the fusion process stops, at the iron nucleus, due to the binding energy per nucleon being at the max. Read up on this. This is 100% consistent with fusion model.


Iron/Nickel/Silicon floats on hydrogen, yeah...right.


Oh please... we would have detected traces of heavier elements in spectra...


We have detected heavier elements in minute quantities with regular spectroscopy. However, satellites are very sensitive and found much more than originally expected.

Obviously, you have decided to ignore my reference links.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab
You are basically asserting heavier elements like iron can magically float on top of hydrogen when it comes to our Sun.


We are talking about plasma here, not a liquid. There is convection going on that churns up material from inner parts of the Sun to its surface.

Look, we don't have a layer of CO2 covering Earth surface, with oxygen floating above (thank God). You rely too much on very, very simplistic assumptions.

And, there is no evidence of significant iron content in giant planets...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Its not true that we have no evidence. We have - its gravitational influence.
They dont believe the fantasy, they are still searching for proof.

Dark matter is, contrary to the popular belief here, quite elegant theory, which requires nothing more to explain current observations than presence of additional matter.


so you have evidence, but you are still searching for the proof?

that's hilarious...



flat earth was also popular belief too

electric universe is also very elegant, it explains this phenomenon of the galaxy rotation not by gravity from imaginary invisible matter (invisible matter - this also sounds like pseudo science) but from very tangible electromagnetic plasma forces...

this also has been predicted/proved by plasma behavior experiments in laboratories...





[edit on 17-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The plasma principle is in possession of expansion. And is a electrical fluid & has a analogy between the electrical fluid and the material electricity. Another interesting thought is would the sun kill you with heat or sound first when you approached it? As the sun is a giant mega woofer! Full of sound/vibration. And since it projects vibration well that would denote it being a giant electrical fluid drop in space!

Oh btw water is a magnetic fluid & the electrical fluid of the sun activates the magnetic fluid of the water. Think of giant sheets of ocean like solar electrical cells! Because the electrical solar winds brush stroke it ever so ultra violently."The rotating, electrically conductive liquid core is what generates the planet's magnetic field." Oh Yes
Thx to the Electrical Fluid in the sky

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Project2501]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem




We are talking about plasma here, not a liquid.


Since the temperature drops significantly as we get closer to the core there should be a transition region where molten metal reaches plasma state.



There is convection going on that churns up material from inner parts of the Sun to its surface. Look, we don't have a layer of CO2 covering Earth surface, with oxygen floating above (thank God). You rely too much on very, very simplistic assumptions.


Concentrations of CO2 are higher towards land and sea. Fortunately we have plants that love it and air currents for circulation. Your argument is moot.



And, there is no evidence of significant iron content in giant planets...


Even NASA would disagree with you.

“Jupiter may have a core made up of heavy elements. The core may be of about the same chemical composition as Earth, but 20 or 30 times more massive.’ - NASA www.nasa.gov...

“Most scientists believe Saturn is a giant ball of gas that has no solid surface. However, the planet seems to have a hot solid inner core of iron and rocky material.” - NASA www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 17-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

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.


No one can resist my shvetty balls.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Science became science because at the begining we were curious and open minded to understanding our world with NO boundaries... now it's all about what "we used to know" and we base our belife and practices within confined boundaries!

The time will come where we realize everything we used to know as being fact was simply an illusion and there is soooooo much more to learn and yet we allow our ego blind sight us in the past and we stopped learning! This is where science becomes another religion! A failed experiment to control mass!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by freighttrain]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project2501
Oh btw water is a magnetic fluid & the electrical fluid of the sun activates the magnetic fluid of the water. Think of giant sheets of ocean like solar electrical cells! Because the electrical solar winds brush stroke it ever so ultra violently."The rotating, electrically conductive liquid core is what generates the planet's magnetic field." Oh Yes
Thx to the Electrical Fluid in the sky

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Project2501]


Water is diamagnetic.


Materials that are said to be diamagnetic are those that are usually considered by non-physicists to be "non-magnetic", and include water, wood, most organic compounds such as petroleum and some plastics, and many metals including copper, particularly the heavy ones with many core electrons, such as mercury, gold and bismuth.


From wiki under diamagnetic.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
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.


O.k. I've dealt with it. and my findings are that Science is a Philosophy.

It seems you say this for lack of understanding of what a Philosophy is.

en.wikipedia.org...
"Many definitions of philosophy begin by stating the difficulty of defining the subject, calling it "notoriously difficult"[2], saying that there is "no straightforward definition"[9] and that most interesting definitions of philosophy are controversial[1]. However, a review of standard reference works [8] [3] [10] [11] [12] [4] [13] [14] suggests that there is a broad agreement among such sources that philosophy involves the study of fundamental or general topics; e.g. "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality",[15] "the most general questions about our universe and our place in it",[8] the "absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates", or "the fundamental reasons or causes of all things".[12] The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy says it is the investigation of the most general and abstract features of the world and the categories with which we think, in order to "lay bare their foundations and presuppositions".[4]"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
# S: (n) doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school)
# S: (n) philosophy (the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics)
# S: (n) philosophy (any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation) "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"

Even Scientist believe that science is a philosophy:

www.scienceforums.net...
"Many years ago when SF was undergoing a change of leadership we had a major debate on this subject. The administrators finally conceded (with some reluctance) that Physics is correctly defined as a Philosophy and that Quantum Physics is correctly defined as a Mathematical Prediction Theory. agree it is a Philosophy"
www.scienceforums.net...

How can Science not be a philosophy? A philosophy is simply a certain way of looking at something - Science certainly does that.

Closed minded scientists do not like to believe this because it opens the possibility that there are other interpretations of the observable phenomena that can be correct. These Scientist maintain that they Must be right even if they are proven wrong. If true Science was really like this we would still be back in the stone age trying to catch fire when lightening strikes.

The truth is science is all about change and growth. It is all about building on the knowledge of the past to form a more complete understanding of the world around us. Science Must change and change continually in the light of new observations, theories and experiments. "Science" has been proven wrong time and time again and will continue to do so no matter how big your research grant is. I suggest Scientists learn to change with the new data and become part of the solution for the betterment of mankind instead of refusing to honestly consider the possibility that they may be wrong.

I can understand if you still disagree with the new data or theory, but for gods sakes man, your scientists.. you Must remain objective and open to new possibilities or you are not real scientist at all.

You say, "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'.
"

I have already posted the definition of a Theory. Perhaps you didn't see it. I will re post it: From Wikipedia:

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do not see where "electric universe fails on all of these fronts" at all.




[edit on 17-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I'm going to have to look into this more in depth, but from initial thoughts this would explain gravity


Yes, you'll need lots more "depth" to explain how an electric current supposedly flowing into the Sun (which is an impossibility) explains gravity.




That's the whole point. Everything changes with this electric universe theory.

Perhaps gravity isn't exactly what we think it is.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


I agree with you I see "science" as more of a religion by man rather than what it is should be,but it seems science desperately wants to fit with what we do know rather than think everything we might know could be wrong.

I didn't follow the whole thread but it seems logical to me that all gas giants would have some sort of solid core for which the outer gases gathered around!





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join