It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Here's The Real Science

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Standard theorists claim this shows the Sun is not a positive anode because electrons should move toward the Sun. Of course, this is a simpleton argument. The fact is, since positive ions are flowing away from the Sun, they will themselves attract electrons and pull the electrons along with them.


Oh boy, now it turns out you don't know jack about electricity. The electric field in a given point of space is the same, whether it's for a positive or negative charge particle. If there is a field that is driving electrons away from the Sun, that same field would drive ions toward the Sun. Which is the opposite of what you are saying yourself.

You claimed many times that Maxwell's equations explain all of the Universe, gravity, Walmart prices and who's gonna win the next American Idol. Sadly, you are inept neither at equations nor at application of same.




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


They are visibly connected by a plasma field.

What else do you call this?




[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


They are visibly connected by a plasma field.

What else do you call this?


Not every diffuse source of light observed by a telescope is "plasma field" (what this is supposed to mean). Light can be scattered by gas, dust and what not, and that galaxy that's in between. If you have a crappy lens, you can observe all sorts of things.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh boy, now it turns out you don't know jack about electricity. The electric field in a given point of space is the same, whether it's for a positive or negative charge particle. If there is a field that is driving electrons away from the Sun, that same field would drive ions toward the Sun. Which is the opposite of what you are saying yourself.


Obviously you don't understand that positively charged ions attract electrons and in a positive coronal discharge, we should expect to see secondary electrons moving with the ion flow.

What's the solar wind composed of again?


The solar wind is made of Hydrogen (95%) and Helium (4%) and Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium, Silicon and Iron (~1%). These atoms are all in the form of positive ions


en.wikipedia.org...


In a positive corona, secondary electrons, for further avalanches, are generated predominantly in the fluid itself, in the region outside the plasma or avalanche region. They are created by ionization caused by the photons emitted from that plasma in the various de-excitation processes occurring within the plasma after electron collisions, the thermal energy liberated in those collisions creating photons which are radiated into the gas. The electrons resulting from the ionisation of a neutral gas molecule are then electrically attracted back toward the curved electrode, attracted into the plasma, and so begins the process of creating further avalanches inside the plasma.

As can be seen, the positive corona is divided into two regions, concentric around the sharp electrode. The inner region contains ionising electrons, and positive ions, acting as a plasma, the electrons avalanche in this region, creating many further ion/electron pairs. The outer region consists almost entirely of the slowly migrating massive positive ions, moving toward the uncurved electrode along with, close to the interface of this region, secondary electrons, liberated by photons leaving the plasma, being re-accelerated into the plasma. The inner region is known as the plasma region, the outer as the unipolar region.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Jurgens lays it all out here.

part 1
www.kronos-press.com...
part 2
www.kronos-press.com...


In a quasineutral plasma, weak electric fields exist.

So while you'll see the plasma look like nothing is happening outwardly, their can exist within that plasma moving electrons supporting a current.

Think of a quasineutral plasma as nothing more than a transmission line.

In a transmission line, the electrons of the copper are not ripped off and thrown down the pipe destroying the copper, only the free electrons move. Electrons of the current are passed through the copper wire while not destroying its composition.

This is true of quasineutral plasma as well. You can pass an electric current through it without destroying the quasineutral state of the plasma.

If one were to examine all the electrons, one would see only a subset of those moving that were imparted to the system by the current. The bulk of the electrons would not be moving.

Further, because of plasmas super-conductive qualities, electrons flowing through the plasma would be moving at relativistic speeds approaching the speed of light. This would make them wildly hard to detect.




[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Visualization exercise of the electric sun:

The heliosphere is the outer collector of free electrons in the galactic medium.

This is negative terminal where electrons flow in from the galactic medium.

In vacuum tubes (including cathode ray tubes) it is the negative terminal where electrons flow in from the wiring and through the tube's near vacuum, constituting a positive current flowing out of the device.

The quasineutral plasma inside the heliosphere is the conducting portion of the vacuum tube (the copper wire).

The Sun is the positive terminal that collects the inflowing electrons, discharges them, and then expels a positive current.

The boundary of the “vacuum tube” is encompassed by a double layer boundary of plasma. The double layer of the heliosophere constitutes the walls of the vacuum tube. Inside of which, the plasma will remain in a quasineutral state acting as a transmission wire. This mechanism is self regulating. As electron densities in the galactic medium increase, the double layer will shrink. As electron densities decrease, the double layer (acting as the collector) will increase, thereby pulling in more electrons from the surrounding space.

At this point, the sun acts as nothing more than a typical positive coronal discharge in EVERY WAY.

The positive corona is divided into two regions, concentric around the sharp electrode (the photosphere). The inner region contains ionising electrons, and positive ions, acting as a plasma (the corona - the inner double layer isolating the quasineutral environment from the discharge), the electrons avalanche in this region, creating many further ion/electron pairs. The outer region (the solar wind discharge) consists almost entirely of the slowly migrating massive positive ions, moving toward the uncurved electrode along with, close to the interface of this region, secondary electrons, liberated by photons leaving the plasma, being re-accelerated into the plasma. The inner region is known as the plasma region, the outer as the unipolar region.

Except the in the Sun’s case, the unipolar region is flowing through quasineutral plasma, not air. This positive flow through quasineutral plasma will generate, as Jurgens puts it, a random Brownian motion. This is what we are looking at with our detectors that supposedly see no electron flow.

The electrons that are flowing in from the heliosphere are arriving at relativistic speeds. The quasineutrality of the surrounding plasma bubble is not violated.




[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
So, do we have evidence all of these mechanisms actually exist?

You bet we do.

The voyager probes detected the CLASSIC signature of a double layer at the heliopause.

We see acceleration of positive ions all the way out to the boundary of the heliopause.

We see anode tufting on the surface of the Sun, a classic discharge phenomena.

The corona of the Sun acts in every way like a typical coronal discharge we can see in a lab.

It follows from this that one should be able to replicate a "Sun" in the lab since all of these processes can be replicated experimentally. As it turns out, all of these HAVE been replicated in a lab. Birkeland's terrella was able to model all the major features of the Sun.

Such a simple device can explain nearly everything we see on the Sun.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
So how does the electric sun theory account for the presense of enormous amounts of hydrogen and a smaller but still significant amounts of helium, which we've found to be the result of nuclear fusion, which we somewhat understand as we've used the process to blow crap up?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Paladin327
 


fusion is a byproduct of the discharge, not the cause.

in fact, neutrino counts are too low for it to be a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction. also, there is variability in the neutrino counts. Something the standard model again can't explain.

there's only one possible explanation for this, the electric sun.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm kind of wondering about the sun. If it is electrical and gets it's energy from outside. Somehow pulled or thrusted to a point the sun gets created.

How does the model explains the death of a star ?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm kind of wondering about the sun. If it is electrical and gets it's energy from outside. Somehow pulled or thrusted to a point the sun gets created.

How does the model explains the death of a star ?


They don't "die" in the classic sense.

They outburst due to massive electrical stress from the surrounding environment, in which case you might see something like a "supernova." Such a massive explosion can be caused by overloading a double layer.

Such an exploding double layer will accelerate electrons to relativistic speeds causing what we observe as xray emissions.

In fact, a misconception the standard theorists often push is that the star cores totally vaporize when such an event occurs. More often than not, this is not the case. Because the exploding double layer is not a physical part of the star itself, a star can continue to exist and outburst repeatedly under stress.

Also, under massive stress we may see stars fission apart to displace the current load. This also explains the large number of binary systems we see in space.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The flow of electrons would be immense and we exactly now its direction. It should be easily detecteble. Where did you get the idea that a vacuum is filled with diffuse electrons, and that it would be very hard to detect a flow of electrons because of this? Lets take a look at the priciple of a CRT screen. It is a vacuum with an electron cannon. These electrons are fired at a fluorescent screen which lights up. The amount of energy needed to fuel the sun would be much higher than that of an CRT screen. If electrons would be flying through the vacuum of space (powered by whatever force), wouldn't we be able to detect it easily? Just hold up a fluorescent screen in space and it would light up brightly. Why wouldn't that work?

It seems to me that the theory that the sun is fueled by electrons flying through a vacuum is pretty much disproven. So they have to be channeled there by another method. Only thing I can think of is a plasma, which can also be taken off the list, because no plasma is observed.

Your theory does not comply with observation, unless you invent all kind of wild theories into the equation. But then it would no longer pass Occam's razor test, and it would for sure not be any better than the standard model. I don't see how you can call this "real" science then.


Dude, we detect electrons all over in space.

They are every where.

Space is a gigantic plasma sea.

Particle detectors light up like crazy when put in space.

You're still not understanding the point.

The point being detecting DRIFT DIRECTION is what is difficult to detect. We can see electrons moving with protons AWAY from the Sun. Standard theorists claim this shows the Sun is not a positive anode because electrons should move toward the Sun. Of course, this is a simpleton argument. The fact is, since positive ions are flowing away from the Sun, they will themselves attract electrons and pull the electrons along with them.

Its the free electron drift against the background of the positive ions that is incredibly diffuse and difficult to detect.

I posted the explanation 3 times already and I'll do it again if you still don't get it.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


So why cant we detect the drift direction? You keep repeating that but you don't come with arguments. Like I already said the amount of electrons going to towards the sun would be immense. To say that measurement is impossible because of diffuse electrons in the vacuum is just total nonsense. It is like saying that we can not measure windspeed on earth because of the diffuse movement of the air paricles.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Jurgens writes:



On the average, measurements show that most of these detected electrons are moving neither inward nor outward. Parker's model requires that a like number of electrons and ions drift outward, constituting the electrically neutral solar wind. Here, we require that an inward flux of 3000 relativistic electrons per cubic meter pervades the background of 9 to 11 million electrons per cubic meter which occupy, but do not flow through, the space between the planets of the solar system.

On this basis, we are at least partially justified in supposing that the negative glow of the solar discharge cannot be located outside the Sun's atmosphere. Since the negative glow is the first true plasma region to be encountered as we proceed from the cathode of a glow discharge toward the anode, the interplanetary plasma may be tentatively assigned this role without straining the self-consistency in the model.(23)

Thus it would appear that, if but one in about every 3,000 electrons near the Earth turned out to be a current carrier moving at almost the speed of light toward the Sun, the power delivered would be enough to keep the Sun "burning" at its present rate. This seems a rather subtle stream but it would suffice to power the Sun.



Out of 9 to 11 million electrons, only 3000 per cubic meter need to be part of the current.

The rest of the electrons are held in a quasineutral state with the positive ions.

The inter-planetary plasma is a transmission wire, it is not a power source.

Jurgens postulates that these electrons are moving at relativistic speeds. This would further hinder their detection. It wouldn't surprise me if deep space detectors saw these electrons as "cosmic rays."




[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
hmmmm

that gives me an idea.

www.srl.caltech.edu...

Suprathermal Electron Pitch Angle Data and Plots from ACE/SWEPAM


In addition, some artifacts are seen in the higher energy channels. In particular, a signal due to sunlight contamination is frequently present at the highest energies. This signal is aligned with the Sun direction, and so moves through a pitch angle plot as the magnetic field direction changes. An example of this can be seen on Dec 14, 2000, as the non-field aligned signal seen from 0-12 UT in the 712, 987 and 1370 eV panels.


Proof of Jurgens model?

Quite possibly.

Perhaps it is not "sunlight contamination" but the inflowing relativistic electrons Jurgens postulated.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously you don't understand that positively charged ions attract electrons and in a positive coronal discharge, we should expect to see secondary electrons moving with the ion flow.


a) coronal discharge has nothing to do with space. Its essential feature is neutral gas being ionized in an avalanche.

b) if electrons are "moving with the ion flow", the net charge of such soup is zero, hence it can't experience net force from a source of electric field even if it existed



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously you don't understand that positively charged ions attract electrons and in a positive coronal discharge, we should expect to see secondary electrons moving with the ion flow.


a) coronal discharge has nothing to do with space. Its essential feature is neutral gas being ionized in an avalanche.

b) if electrons are "moving with the ion flow", the net charge of such soup is zero, hence it can't experience net force from a source of electric field even if it existed


a) A coronal discharge mimics everything about the Sun; therefore, it has everything to do with space.

b) members.cox.net...


Laboratory measurements demonstrate that a nonzero-valued electric field in the direction of the current (Eparallel > 0) is required to produce a nonzero current density within any plasma no matter what mode of operation the plasma is in. Negative-slope regions of the volt-ampere characteristic (negative dynamic resistance) of a plasma column reveal the cause of the filamentary properties of plasma, but all static resistance values are measured to be > 0.

Thus, although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic fields are not frozen inside them.


This refutes your point, however this is not what I'm talking about. A quasineutral plasma can act as a transmission line. You're thinking the Sun is powered by the inter-planetary plasma and I'm not saying that. I'm saying its power by the inter-stellar plasma, and the inter-planetary plasma is simply a quasineutral transmission line between the heliosphere and the double layer of the corona.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


now we are on to neutron stars hey?

So explain how a pulsar can rotate at 1800 hz for me without flying apart.

Explain why neutrons should violate the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry.

Then explain how pulsars that do those things are somehow more realistic than the model proposed by Peratt, which doesn't involve any strange matter or hypothetical physics.


As to the "dark matter" nonsense, I have prepared a suitable response here.

fascistsoup.com...


Even though the neutron star is spinning at speed x the speed is still not strong enough to overpower gravity. The star only stretches out along the center.

Neutron stars themselves are held together by the strong nuclear force. Which is only thing that doesn't keep neutron stars from turning into black holes.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
a) A coronal discharge mimics everything about the Sun; therefore, it has everything to do with space.


It does not. Coronal discharge requires electrically neutral gas to be present for the phenomenon to develop.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


now we are on to neutron stars hey?

So explain how a pulsar can rotate at 1800 hz for me without flying apart.

Explain why neutrons should violate the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry.

Then explain how pulsars that do those things are somehow more realistic than the model proposed by Peratt, which doesn't involve any strange matter or hypothetical physics.


As to the "dark matter" nonsense, I have prepared a suitable response here.

fascistsoup.com...


Even though the neutron star is spinning at speed x the speed is still not strong enough to overpower gravity. The star only stretches out along the center.

Neutron stars themselves are held together by the strong nuclear force. Which is only thing that doesn't keep neutron stars from turning into black holes.

en.wikipedia.org...


This explanation violates the laws of nuclear chemistry.

I asked you to explain why this should be so, and why I should believe a model that uses a ton of hypothetical ON TOP of violating the laws of known physics over a model that does neither.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
a) A coronal discharge mimics everything about the Sun; therefore, it has everything to do with space.


It does not. Coronal discharge requires electrically neutral gas to be present for the phenomenon to develop.


No, it does not.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join