Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

This thread is based on a recent Thunderbolts Project YouTube video:

Published on Feb 21, 2014

. . . NASA's IBEX and Voyager 1 missions have shattered all conventional ideas about the heliospheric boundary, the region separating our solar system from interstellar space. In 2009, the IBEX spacecraft created the first all-sky map of the boundary revealing an astonishing ribbon of energetic neutral atoms. According to scientists, it's still a big mystery. . . .

www.youtube.com...

I see in Wikipedia there is an article on energetic neutral atoms which states:

. . . The first ever images of the heliospheric boundary, published in October 2009, were made by the ENA instruments aboard the IBEX and Cassini spacecraft. These images are very exciting because they challenge existing theories about the region.

en.wikipedia.org...

So I guess the mainstream Wikipedia agrees that existing theories about the heliospheric boundary are probably incorrect.

The definition of ENA imaging:

Energetic neutral atom (ENA) imaging, often described as "seeing with atoms", is a technology used to create global images of otherwise invisible phenomena in the magnetospheres of planets and at the boundary of the heliosphere - the far-flung outer edge of the solar system.[1]

ENA images are constructed from the detection of energetic neutral atoms that are created in charge-exchange processes between ions in a hot plasma, such as the solar wind, and the atoms of a cold neutral background gas.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

According to this video the standard theory is that there is a shock front at the boundary created by the kinetic energy of solar wind particles colliding with the interstellar medium.

The video is saying that the shock front model is incorrect. It is saying the boundary is showing a more complex structure than mere mechanical impact. It is saying that the heliosheath is dominated by the galaxy's magnetic field, which in turn traces the direction of interstellar current flow in space near the sun:

Time to throw the old theories away for new ones !

I'm afraid the MS scientists will "discover" some new kind of boundary-energy or invisible boundary-matter spooky thing that fits the old model and explain the new observations...

Wouldn't the charge at the edge of the heliosphere be considered a surface tension, similar to the field generated around high voltage wires. The higher the voltage or energy, the farther from the source this tension would be.

reply to post by KrzYma


You're probably right.

I wonder how long it will take.

I'm looking forward to information that will come out of next month's Electric Universe 2014 conference "All About Evidence," however.

This evidence disproves current models, or at the very least acknowledges the need to better understand underlying mechanisms. However, in no way does it CONFIRM (prove) the electric sun "theory".

This doesn't actually prove any electric sun theory.

Mainstream science doesn't expect any kind of mechanical interface at termination shock. There is nothing but whips of plasma out there with extremely low densities. Maybe elevated densities compared to what might be considered 'normal' substellar space, but still pretty low.

I would not expect any acceleration at the termination shock of the sun and interstellar media, because the density is so low that it is not really a mechanical shock front. To claim that current mainstream models say that it is 'thought' it is mechanical is putting words into peoples mouths.

Furthermore mainstream theories regarding the origins of cosmic rays never claim they fully understand their origins, they make proposals regarding various energetic phenomenon as sources of such high energy particles. The evidence is that we see a continuum of ultra-high energy particles raining down on the Earth from ALL directions, it is pretty much isotropic. That is the evidence, simple 'current flow' doesn't allow for generation of such high energy particles, and certainly not from all directions. If it was an electrical effect, current will flow along field lines, what proponents of the electric universe do, its talk a lot about field lines and their shapes and then ignore observational evidence they don't like, and latch on to others.

As much as you say "Oh from mainstream sources" and use the phrase "mainstream" to denote wrong in your eyes... (pretty ignorant). This video is also from a clear proponent of said alternative theories, to claim it is any more right or correct, is also pretty short sighted.


Once again saying "This proves that" without actual demonstration is total bunk. That video is full of it, full of pretty diagrams that show the data, with a man saying words over the top of it, and using a standard "Oh they say this, but its wrong, i say something else and the data proves it" When really they show ZERO analysis of any credibility.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I love the smell of shattered convention in the morning. Thanks for posting.

Personally I would like to believe that Electric Universe is true, but until it includes an explanation for time dilation, how can I?
If I have missed one, please inform me.

Id say the electric universe is true enough.................along with the standard model....they just need to combine the observations to come up with the true picture.....instead of poo pooing each other....

reply to post by demonhauntedworld


I remember Eugene Mallove saying in an interview on Coast to Coast in 2004: "Time dilation is not part of the universe."

stirling
....they just need to combine the observations to come up with the true picture.....instead of poo pooing each other....

I wish I had a magic wand and could remove all ridicule from scientific discourse.

It would serve us well in progressing closer to the truth.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Except that it is demonstrably true. GPS satellites calibrated on Earth must account for time dilation due to whizzing around the planet at high speed, higher up in the gravity well, for example.

reply to post by demonhauntedworld


There is an alternative view:

Published on Apr 6, 2013

Perhaps you've already heard that GPS, by the very fact that it WORKS, confirms Einstein's relativity; also that Black Holes must be real. But these are little more than popular fictions, according to the distinguished GPS expert Ron Hatch. Here Ron describes GPS data that refute fundamental tenets of both the Special and General Relativity theories. The same experimental data, he notes, suggests an absolute frame with only an appearance of relativity.

Ron has worked with satellite navigation and positioning for 50 years, having demonstrated the Navy's TRANSIT System at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. He is well known for innovations in high-accuracy applications of the GPS system including the development of the "Hatch Filter" which is used in most GPS receivers. He has obtained over two dozen patents related to GPS positioning and is currently a member of the U.S National PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) Advisory Board. He is employed in advanced engineering at John Deere's Intelligent Systems Group.

Mary Rose
reply to post by demonhauntedworld

 

There is an alternative view:

Ron Hatch doesn't dispute what demonhauntedworld said about clock speeds, in fact he confirms those are the effects we observe.

Hatch has some alternate theory to relativity to explain the observations, which apparently involves assigning a non-zero rest mass to photons. He says he's having trouble getting published, which doesn't surprise me since there's no evidence I've ever seen that photons have rest mass.

If photons have mass it should likely be required to have less mass than neutrinos, which are at thus point thought to be the lightest fundamental particle that is not a gauge boson.

Photon mass is an interesting idea which as pointed out, runs into many problems which require far more intricate tuning and add-ons than what is considered standard mainstream theory.

Why is it so important to some people that the sketchy "electric universe" notion be proven correct?

I suspect that people with low self-esteem have an innate desire to try and knock down what they perceive as an established hierarchy of authority or power, in an effort to gain more themselves.

reply to post by Mary Rose


If you have some more than 3 hours here is something for you

reply to post by ErosA433

Right. Some of these electric universe guys make claims which contradict observation and you can say they are wrong because their claims contradict observation. For example, regarding the electric sun claim:

First, I don't see how neutral particles are supposed to be part of current flow. Shouldn't they be charged particles?
Second, estimates of the current density required to power the sun are so fantastically high that it's inconceivable we wouldn't have observed such currents. So, I feel pretty confident in saying electric sun model is wrong.

About Ken Hatch's idea, as relativity deniers go, he's less fringe than some, and we can't really say the photon rest mass is definitely zero but research like this has attempted to put limits on it:

arxiv.org...

An interesting application of the study is to constrain the photon mass. Our study of a particular gravitational lens resulted in the limit m γ < 2.3 × 10 −9 eV (95% CL). This is not the best ever limit; however, it is the only existing photon-mass constraint relevant for distance scales larger than Galactic.

Hatch didn't say what rest mass the photon would need to have in his theory, except to say that it changes as the photon travels down a gravitational gradient like from the GPS satellite to the Earth's surface, and since his paper wasn't published, I can't read that unless he posted a draft somewhere. So I can't say he's wrong, but hopefully his proposed values for photon rest mass don't contradict observation.

He's got a lot of other explaining to do if relativity is wrong, and one reason I have little confidence in him is he mentions Halton Arp's claims support his views. I've investigated those, and I'm convinced Arp was wrong (which was also the conclusion virtually all mainstream astronomers of any significance).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Not only that but he doesn't seem particularly interested in Electric Universe at all and doesn't particularly ascribe any faults he finds in GR to be addressed by EU.
edit: he does sort of get there right at the end, but it seems like it's kind of his own version of it.

An aside: c being "numerically variant" vs "physically variant"? "Mathematically the same" but "physical speed is different"? Whatever difference there might be in those two things gets a little metaphysical for my tastes.

Blue Shift
Why is it so important to some people that the sketchy "electric universe" notion be proven correct?

Why are you questioning the motives of people posting alternative theories?

I don't believe the theory is sketchy at all.

And I think mainstream science should be considering the theory instead of continuing to put band aids on the gravitational model for the universe.