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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 11
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Poet1b makes a statement:


poet1b
If you have an electrically neutral hydrogen atom, and the electron separates from the proton, you have 2 ions, the proton and the electron.


Dragonrider says the same thing and calls Poet1b confused:


dragonridr
Ok im going to make this easy for you and keep it simple. Yes hydrogen can be used to make protons yes there can be hydrogen ions which is plasma.But a free proton is a particle we call them hadrons maybe this is your confusion.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

poet1b
Um, the sun can't be 90% plasma, and 90% hydrogen, unless that plasma is considered to be hydrogen.



poet1b
I think you have a point, a plasma is not really electrically neutral, but institutionalized science seems to need to see plasma as electrically neutral.


Maybe institutionalized science describes things the way they do because they don't want the sun to be electric.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Mary Rose

Maybe institutionalized science describes things the way they do because they don't want the sun to be electric.


"Institutionalized science" couldn't give two hoots whether the sun is powered my fusion, electricity or unicorn farts. Conclusions are drawn from the evidence. You don't like the conclusions? Go find another universe to live in. This is in stark contrast to the pseudoscience proponents you seem so fond of who start with a conclusion and cling on for dear life regardless of the evidence.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


REALLY! Science is drawn from evidence? I missed the televised version of when they landed probes on the sun and gathered this evidence.

Most of the scientific theories on atomic structure, plasma, the sun, and the cosmos is developed from a long history of unproven theories. People who think otherwise, know nothing about science.

The idea that our scientists have it all figured out is adolescent.




edit on 8-3-2014 by poet1b because: no to know



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



if you ionize helium you get helium ions, that is correct. Helium ions should have two protons (and depending on the isotope, some neutrons) while hydrogen ions should have one proton.


There you go, now you are starting to get it.

The point is that we do not know how much two hydrogen ions/protons are alike. Are the two protons in a helium ions twins? or partners? and are they just like the hydrogen proton?

If we had more information about the nature of protons, they we could develop a better understanding of different plasma types, or maybe, if we study plasma structure, we can learn more about protons and electrons.

The inner core of the sun is believed to be composed of proton ions, completely stripped of all electrons, which would mean that it would be positive, and then the corona would have large numbers of electrons, making it negative, kind of a giant capacitor, except witout the gap.


edit on 8-3-2014 by poet1b because: typos



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Dragonrider's purpose seems only to try and drag the thread off topic. He posts links that don't support his claims, or sometimes proves me right and him wrong, like that the theory that atoms are made up of hydrogen was proven wrong, which is exactly the point I was making.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Mary Rose

poet1b
Um, the sun can't be 90% plasma, and 90% hydrogen, unless that plasma is considered to be hydrogen.



poet1b
I think you have a point, a plasma is not really electrically neutral, but institutionalized science seems to need to see plasma as electrically neutral.



Maybe institutionalized science describes things the way they do because they don't want the sun to be electric.


Or maybe you dont understand how electrons work its really simple. If an object has less electrons than protons its positively charged and if it has more electrons than protons its negatively charged. And if an atom contains equal numbers of protons and electrons, the atom is described as being electrically neutral. Now if we break down an atom further we get ions that being of course proton neutron and electron.Now in plasma we can get electrons to transfer energy see electrons love to change locations whether its into another orbit or another atom it doesnt care. So it is how energy is transferred from one atom to another.For example a fluorescent bulb an electron hits a mercury atom taking it to a higher energy level. This is unstable so the extra energy is emitted as a photon and the mercury atom returns to its normal energy state.And this leads to the problem we have with the electric sun theory. We have to introduce energy by electron transfer from somewhere. But there is no power source to supply the energy in the first place.See when we look into the sun we should see a flow of electrons entering the sun but we dont its not there. Now you're more than welcome to tell us where this energy comes from to excite the atoms in the sun to produce light it has to come from somewhere.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by GetHyped
 


REALLY! Science is drawn from evidence?

Yes. You should read up on it sometime.


I missed the televised version of when they landed probes on the sun and gathered this evidence.


Argument from ignorance. "I'm personally not familiar with the experimental techniques and data to form a conclusion therefore it's wrong".


Most of the scientific theories on atomic structure, plasma, the sun, and the cosmos is developed from a long history of unproven theories. People who think otherwise, know nothing about science.


You should read up on what a scientific theory is and what steps a hypothesis has to go through to become a theory.


The idea that our scientists have it all figured out is adolescent.


So is fabricating straw man arguments. Care to point out where anyone has said this? I'll save you the bother: they haven't.
edit on 8-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


When it comes to the sun, there is no hard evidence as you claim.

While it takes a well developed process to establish a theory, a theory is still not a proven fact.

What is arrogant is your posts where you claim you know all about how the sun works, when from your own posts, you still don't understand the scientific method.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by GetHyped
 


REALLY! Science is drawn from evidence? I missed the televised version of when they landed probes on the sun and gathered this evidence.

Most of the scientific theories on atomic structure, plasma, the sun, and the cosmos is developed from a long history of unproven theories. People who think otherwise, know nothing about science.

The idea that our scientists have it all figured out is adolescent.




edit on 8-3-2014 by poet1b because: no to know

agree !
one "discovery" leads to another "discovery" backed up by another "discovery"...
but nobody ask if the first discovery was real
all assumptions



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 




but nobody ask if the first discovery was real

Can you be more specific?
Which first discovery, in particular, are you questioning? Which was the "first?"

On the other hand, which is the first "discovery" which supports the electric sun notion? Or is that just speculation too?

edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

dragonridr

Mary Rose

poet1b
Um, the sun can't be 90% plasma, and 90% hydrogen, unless that plasma is considered to be hydrogen.



poet1b
I think you have a point, a plasma is not really electrically neutral, but institutionalized science seems to need to see plasma as electrically neutral.



Maybe institutionalized science describes things the way they do because they don't want the sun to be electric.


Or maybe you dont understand how electrons work its really simple. If an object has less electrons than protons its positively charged and if it has more electrons than protons its negatively charged. And if an atom contains equal numbers of protons and electrons, the atom is described as being electrically neutral. Now if we break down an atom further we get ions that being of course proton neutron and electron.Now in plasma we can get electrons to transfer energy see electrons love to change locations whether its into another orbit or another atom it doesnt care. So it is how energy is transferred from one atom to another.For example a fluorescent bulb an electron hits a mercury atom taking it to a higher energy level. This is unstable so the extra energy is emitted as a photon and the mercury atom returns to its normal energy state.And this leads to the problem we have with the electric sun theory. We have to introduce energy by electron transfer from somewhere. But there is no power source to supply the energy in the first place.See when we look into the sun we should see a flow of electrons entering the sun but we dont its not there. Now you're more than welcome to tell us where this energy comes from to excite the atoms in the sun to produce light it has to come from somewhere.




Or maybe you dont understand how electrons work its really simple.


or maybe you don't, all you know is what the MS science tells you, how can you be sure ?? this is ridiculous.
Any theory that describes observations, even if backed up by math, is still a theory.

Lets assume you are a child, that gets a gift from the Nickolaus every year. You don't grow up so all stays the same for years.
You have no access to the truth about where the gifts come from, so you construct a theory you can discuss with your friends in the sandbox.
All agree that the gifts are there, every year, it is PROVEN that this is what you see.
Your theory is, the Nickolaus must be real.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 




Your theory is, the Nickolaus must be real.

Until you actually observe your parents putting the gifts under the tree. Your theory has then been falsified.


edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by KrzYma
 




but nobody ask if the first discovery was real

Can you be more specific?
Which first discovery, in particular, are you questioning? Which was the "first?"

On the other hand, which is the first "discovery" which supports the electric sun notion? Or is that just speculation too?

edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




proof the atom model we have is real, electrons as particles surrounding the protons.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by KrzYma
 




Your theory is, the Nickolaus must be real.

Until you actually observe your parents putting the gifts under the tree. Your theory has then been falsified.


edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


sure, but the parents don't want you to discover that, so anything you get is lies, to keep you from thinking

Just one questions, if the Universe is full of life, like the statistics say, and some of them visit us, and have for securities, our theory don't allow speed faster then light however, how did they get there ??
if true



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


proof the atom model we have is real, electrons as particles surrounding the protons.
Who said anything about "proof?"
That's quite a simplification of the standard model but, in spite of its known limitations, it works quite well.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


sure, but the parents don't want you to discover that, so anything you get is lies, to keep you from thinking
Actually, it's not a matter of keeping kids from thinking. My daughter is a critical thinker and figured it out on her own. But, it works quite well to help younger kids behave during the holiday season when they are indoors too much.


Just one questions, if the Universe is full of life, like the statistics say, and some of them visit us, and have for securities, our theory don't allow speed faster then light however, how did they get there ??
if true
Prove they visit us and then we can discuss it.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by KrzYma
 


sure, but the parents don't want you to discover that, so anything you get is lies, to keep you from thinking
Actually, it's not a matter of keeping kids from thinking. My daughter is a critical thinker and figured it out on her own. But, it works quite well to help younger kids behave during the holiday season when they are indoors too much.


Just one questions, if the Universe is full of life, like the statistics say, and some of them visit us, and have for securities, our theory don't allow speed faster then light however, how did they get there ??
if true
Prove they visit us and then we can discuss it.



with pleasure !

I assume you believe the people who works for the government ?


Hon. Paul Hellyer - Minister of National Defense
Testified knowing of 4 Alien races actively visiting Earth.

edit on 8-3-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


I assume you believe the people who works for the government ?

Sure, anyone is welcome to their opinion. Did Hellyer provide evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial, or did he say "This is my own view." Oh, yes he did say that, didn't he? At about 2:45.

Sorry, someone saying that they believe we are being visited is not proof that we are. Sort of off topic though.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by KrzYma
 


I assume you believe the people who works for the government ?

Sure, anyone is welcome to their opinion. Did Hellyer provide evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial, or did he say "This is my own view." Oh, yes he did say that, didn't he? At about 2:45.

Sorry, someone saying that they believe we are being visited is not proof that we are. Sort of off topic though.



he said "This is my own view." ..at this stage as well !!

dude, listen, I don't care what you think about it, I don't care if you think different than me, I don't really know you
I'm not out here for fight rather than sharing my knowledge...
We are shaped by our experiences, so please watch this totally out of contests video, some history about propaganda

don't watch if you don't want to... but if you capable of critical thinking, do it !


edit on 8-3-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join