The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

reply to post by mnemeth1

I find it somewhat humorous that they demand proof of inflows, when Scott has detailed why we may have not fully observed them yet, but everything else in the electric theory checks out and explains observations in a far more elegant and simple way without using any hypothetical physics in its descriptions.

If the core is molten iron/nickel/silicon there should be a good amount of inductance from space radiation. We should see effects in the form of heat. It would likely be impossible to isolate since more energy is added by the supernova core and nuclear reactions.




[edit on 18-12-2009 by platoslab]

Cool stuff. I'll have to read it more in depth first, but it looks promising.

Nikola Tesla's theories and proven inventions aren't supposed to work according to numerous "laws" created by previous scientists and theorists.

Laws of science are nothing more than published educated theories. There is so much there isn't understood that making blind guesses doesn't really help much.

The more we keep an open mind and venture guesses about science, the better we'll understand it later on down the road.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Which would also bring up the question of why does the earth rotate?

It doesn't, you heretic. The Bible clearly states that "the world is firmly established; it cannot be moved" with a mobile sun orbiting around it: "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastes 1:5 The bible also probably says the sun is electric. That will seal the deal.
I'm surprised that the EU "believers" don't use as a proof, that since the sun is only 6,000 years old, it isn't old enough to have developed sustained fusion.

Actually, EU theorists maintain the Earth has been around for a long long time and the universe appears to be infinite in space and infinite in time.

There was no big bang.

Indeed, the big bang was concocted by a catholic priest in a bid to tie science and theology together.

Modern theory has much more in common with religion than EU theory.

Modern theory requires pure faith in the following:

-Black holes
-Neutron stars
-Quasars
-Pulsars
-Supermassive black holes
-Multiple dimensions
-Dark matter
-Dark energy
-Cosmic inflation
-The Big Bang
-The Big Crunch
-Quark Stars
-Magnetars
-Strange matter
-WIMPs
-MACHOs
-Magnetic reconnection
-The hydrogen fusion model of stars
-Gravitational waves
-The Higg's "God" particle
...the list goes on.



None of the above have been directly observed or confirmed. They are all based on pure hypothetical theory made up by a bunch of new age gurus twiddling with knobs on a math program.

Scientists look at the sky, then dream up all sorts of fanciful explanations using physics that is completely detached from reality.

EU theory does not believe in hypothetical physics. All physics used must conform to verifiable properties of plasma in a laboratory. This is why EU theories often appear in engineering journals rather than cosmology journals.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh no, not again... You can dub the youtube video with ANY amount of new age music, but that doesn't make this silliness into science.

There is simply no evidence of proton influx into the Sun. Interestingly, there is ample evidence of solar wind emanating from the Sun.

The solar wind is an outflow of charged particles, those particles and the fact that they accelerate with increasing speed as distance from the sun increases are not explained in the standard model at all.

But thanks for bringing it up, because its one more nail in the coffin for the standard model.

As for your proton influx claims, the satellite readings in question never looked at the polar influx over the sun, which is where the currents would be arriving from. Of course, our own Earth exhibits such effects. We call the effects of these currents the aurora.

There's more to cosmology than the standard model. It is the anomolous readings that make it necessary to re-think the model(s). That's how science works. Theory fitted to current facts....time passes/experiments...awkward/unexplained facts are discovered...new theory drawn up....time passes/experiments....etc etc etc Until at some point the theory fits all the facts, no new awkward facts are emerging AND (this is the holy grail) the theory predicts behaviour not yet witnessed.

Now wrt electric sun. I don't need to investigate this since it fails the common sense test. If the sun was powered externally then all of the apparent power(energy) of the sun has to be external and that is a fricking lot of energy, electrical or not. With that amount of electrical energy flowing in I think it would have been notice even by the satellite makers as their equipment was fried! The source is either concentrated/funnelled in or spread out. If the former then there is a huge glow somewhere?!?! If the latter then the shaded side of earth would be bombarded with electrical energy and those satellites would be suffering. Finally where is the source of the electrical energy?

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh no, not again... You can dub the youtube video with ANY amount of new age music, but that doesn't make this silliness into science.

There is simply no evidence of proton influx into the Sun. Interestingly, there is ample evidence of solar wind emanating from the Sun.

The solar wind is an outflow of charged particles, those particles and the fact that they accelerate with increasing speed as distance from the sun increases are not explained in the standard model at all.

But thanks for bringing it up, because its one more nail in the coffin for the standard model.

As for your proton influx claims, the satellite readings in question never looked at the polar influx over the sun, which is where the currents would be arriving from. Of course, our own Earth exhibits such effects. We call the effects of these currents the aurora.

There's more to cosmology than the standard model. It is the anomolous readings that make it necessary to re-think the model(s). That's how science works. Theory fitted to current facts....time passes/experiments...awkward/unexplained facts are discovered...new theory drawn up....time passes/experiments....etc etc etc Until at some point the theory fits all the facts, no new awkward facts are emerging AND (this is the holy grail) the theory predicts behaviour not yet witnessed.

Now wrt electric sun. I don't need to investigate this since it fails the common sense test. If the sun was powered externally then all of the apparent power(energy) of the sun has to be external and that is a fricking lot of energy, electrical or not. With that amount of electrical energy flowing in I think it would have been notice even by the satellite makers as their equipment was fried! The source is either concentrated/funnelled in or spread out. If the former then there is a huge glow somewhere?!?! If the latter then the shaded side of earth would be bombarded with electrical energy and those satellites would be suffering. Finally where is the source of the electrical energy?

What fails the common sense test are theories that declare the Sun is a big ball of burning hydrogen when the surface of the Sun is only 6000K but the corona of the Sun is over 2 million K.

Energy must be arriving from outside the Sun to account for this observation. No other explanation is plausible.




[edit on 18-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by malcr

You may as well give up, mnemr. The purveyors of this pseudoscientific woo will never be convinced. Believing in this BS is part of their identificatory makeup. They can neither do nor understand either the math or the science, therefore it must be wrong. Otherwise, they are lesser humans in their own minds. Their worldview is. "I don't understand Newton, Lorenz, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Bohn, Hawking, Neumann, Gell-Mann, or Penrose. So they have got to be wrong! They must be wrong! See world, they are wrong and that makes me smarter than Newton, Lorenz, Einstein, Bohr, Bohn, Bohn, Hawking, neumann, Gell-Mann, and Penrose. And if you don't agree with me, you're just a fascist poo-poo head."



[edit on 18-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]

reply to post by 4nsicphd


I guess just like people don't understand the "science" behind man made global warming, right?

The fact is the Fusion model relies on a whole lot of factors that have not been observed or even recreated or don't know if they are even possible. It sounds like this, "Well it has to be this because there is no other way it can be anything else." That is not science. I think there is more than enough evidence present that blows the Fusion model out of the water.

That doesn't mean the EU model is correct either, but when numerous predictions start failing with every new test they conduct then they revert to making up new things to fit within the current model, that means the current model is wrong.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Modern theory requires pure faith in the following:

-Black holes
-Neutron stars
-Quasars
-Pulsars
-Supermassive black holes
-Multiple dimensions
-Dark matter
-Dark energy
-Cosmic inflation
-The Big Bang
-The Big Crunch
-Quark Stars
-Magnetars
-Strange matter
-WIMPs
-MACHOs
-Magnetic reconnection
-The hydrogen fusion model of stars
-Gravitational waves
-The Higg's "God" particle
...the list goes on.



None of the above have been directly observed or confirmed. They are all based on pure hypothetical theory made up by a bunch of new age gurus twiddling with knobs on a math program.

If I was to summarize it in one word, your characterization is a lie.
There are theories that wait their confirmation or refutation in experiment, but no "blind" faith in anything. Our observations (very real) of certain phenomena are highly consistent with the hypothesis of black holes, for example. Gravitational lensing is just one piece of the puzzle. Nobody tries to make you believe the Higgs particle exists. They actually built an accelerator facility and some massive detectors to DETERMINE THE TRUTH.

The "electric" theories do not explain abosulute majority of complex phenomena we observe in the Universe. They only are attractive to you because the real physics is way too hard for you to understand and you feel inadequate. Better try to just deal with it instead of slandering real science. Calling hard working people with mental capacity many times bigger than your own "a bunch of new age gurus" is quite rich of you.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Sorry, your assertion and woo-woo about the catholic "priest" and the Big Bang, and trying to disparage a viable, observed and still potent hypothesis fails.

As pointed out in my earlier post from a few days ago.

Most of your other claims, in your post?

Too many to go in to, but really...there are FAR more peer-reviewed work that refute the EU nonsense. Really.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Aaah if you don't know about it it can't be real? Is that it?

There is another explanation: Alfvén waves. You can read an article about it here, if you want. Or not, and just keep banging on.

reply to post by buddhasystem

buddha, you are the man!
Oops, I mean enlightened one and awakened one and Shakyamuni . Give my best to Yaśodharā.

reply to post by davesidious


I can't read the science article because I would have to pay for it, but those waves sound like an electrical quality. The key word being "electro" magnetic.

Why do the people against the EU theory constantly ignore the presence electricity in everything? Don't tell me because the math is too complex or my brain isn't big enough to understand, because honestly after reading the wiki on those waves it cold actually be the interstellar medium is electrically conductive which is exactly what the wiki says.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by davesidious

 

I can't read the science article because I would have to pay for it, but those waves sound like an electrical quality. The key word being "electro" magnetic.

Why do the people against the EU theory constantly ignore the presence electricity in everything? Don't tell me because the math is too complex or my brain isn't big enough to understand, because honestly after reading the wiki on those waves it cold actually be the interstellar medium is electrically conductive which is exactly what the wiki says.

Instead of relying on a wiki, try looking at refrences like:
Alvarez, A.; Pen-Yu, K.; and Vazquez, L. "The Numerical Study of a Nonlinear One-Dimensional Dirac Equation." Appl. Math. Comput. 18, 1-15, 1983; orBerestetskii, V. B.; Lif#z, E. M.; and Ditaevskii, L. P. Quantum Electrodynamics, 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1982; or, riffiths, D. J. "The Dirac Equation" and "Solutions to the Dirac Equation." §7.1-7.2 in Introduction to Elementary Particles. New York: Wiley, pp. 213-222, 1987.
And we don't ignore the "presence of electricity in everything." We deny it. Because we know better. There is no leccy in a 0 neutrino. or a neutral pion. In fact, the word "electricity" is so vague as to be functionally meaningless. Do you really mean Electric charge, Electric current, Electric field, Electric potential, or Electromagnetism? and what in the name of Hannes Alfven do you mean by "interstellar medium" luminiferous aether?
Dirac vacuum? Allison DuBois in space? a fortuneller sitting between Whoopie and Peter Marshall on The Hollywood Squares?

reply to post by mnemeth1

Energy must be arriving from outside the Sun to account for this observation. No other explanation is plausible.

The assertion that inflowing energy is responsible for heating is flawed. Take a look at the satellite photographs below.

The light blue areas are iron ion emissions in the arcs. Yellow areas are x-ray emissions which appear to be produced as the iron is thinned out due to gravity. This is likely the z-pinch effect where massive current is forced through thin iron filaments. Source of electrical energy (and iron) is clearly originating from the surface.( Yohkoh)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1686f67aa679.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is another photo with a better view of iron ions. (Trace: 171 angstrom filter)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1615d50c2892.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 18-12-2009 by platoslab]