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: 16
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Mary Rose
In my opinion it is evident that there is an aether that is energy itself, from which all force and all matter in the universe arise. It has always been here and will always be here.
"it is evident"? How is it evident? What definition of energy are you using? Has this energy been measured?

To put it in a specific context, a solar probe will be launched in 2018, and since it will be going somewhat near the sun, engineers need to design the craft to withstand certain energy densities at various frequencies of the EM spectrum, plus a certain solar wind density, etc. According to the electric sun models, meaning there is more than one model (Scott has one, Thornhill a different one), the energy densities the spacecraft would be subjected to will be considerably different than the standard model. Bridgman has invited anyone who favors the electric sun model to show their energy density calculations to engineers designing the spacecraft for two reasons, one to make sure the craft can withstand it and two, to make sure the measuring instruments onboard the probe are designed to measure the appropriate range of energy levels, and it needs to know specifically how to measure them, but they need specifics because they need to build specific instrumentation.

Last time I checked nobody from the EU community had offered any specific calculations of predicted energy levels to aid engineers in designing the spacecraft and its instrumentation, which is especially ironic considering the emphasis the EU community places on "in situ" measurements. Here the EU folks have a chance to provide specifics on how to develop in situ instrumentation, and we hear nothing but crickets, unless I've missed something, in which case please enlighten us.




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Mary Rose

dragonridr
Well maybe you can make things happen by answering some questions like where does the electric sun theory get the energy from to power the sun?


The Electric Universe theory is in contrast to the standard Gravity Model and Big Bang theory.

EU proponents make no proposals for how the universe got here.

In my opinion it is evident that there is an aether that is energy itself, from which all force and all matter in the universe arise. It has always been here and will always be here.

This is probably something that cannot be proven.

But I think it is probably more rational than the Big Bang theory and the Gravity model and all of the money spent and mental gymnastics carried out trying to justify those models.


So you think there is a hidden potential energy being used by the sun? Ok lets say there was energy the sun uses to create its flow of electrons it would need why can't we see this flow of electrons entering the sun?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


The big bang model is based upon several observations

1) The Hubble constant.

Measuring the distance to objects in the cosmos can be quite tricky, but thanks to better instrumentation, advances in ground based optics, improvement of space based optics and also built for purpose remote space telescopes we have improved our ability to measure the distances between objects. There are many methods though typically what is performed is that they are calibrated against each other (typically these are nearby). As distance increases methods used for nearby measurements become inaccurate. Then we turn to phenomenon that we have spent time examining at intermediate distances and apply them to the longer distances. We also look at our models for stellar interiors and look at very basic things such as black body radiation and luminous fluxes for stars that happen to always have the same flux.

In short measurement of distance while tricky, can be done at a fair accuracy these days. What has been observed is that outside the local cluster of galaxies, objects at large distances appear to be redshifted, this red-shift increases with distance and forms a nice linear relationship between distance and red-shift.

This can suggest that the universe is expanding.

2) Cosmic Microwave background

This background radiation started out as a simple annoyance, there would be this low level noise collected in their equipment. Despite cleaning and calibrating and adjusting, it would simply not go away. It was discovered that the spectrum of this radiation was that of a Perfect Black Body at a temperature of 2.7K.
The origin of this radiation was pinned down to being basically, from all directions in space. Since then it has been studied in great detail and we now have a full sky map of the CMB from our location. So why is it important?

Well the CMB comes from all directions, yet there is not one astrophysical source for it?
Black body radiation is the release of energy from matter as the electrons excite and de-excite due to thermal energy. Typically at room temperature, this radiation is infra red. It is how heat cameras work, they tend to have really terrible resolution because the amount of light you are observing is so small... That is the colder a material the less radiation it emits and the lower energy radiation it emits. This is a known observation.

So what can be emitting radiation at 2.7K in a perfect black body? and in the amount that we observe?

Well that is tricky, but given the above observation, if we start out with a hot dense universe that at one point was energy dominated rather than matter dominated, when it cools and reaches a 'freeze out' temperature... what would happen if we redshift that?

Well oddly enough this gives a very nice fit to the data with some adjustment. And by adjustment i mean only small tuning, not a great big hashed together mess.

So if the universe is both expanding, and was once hot, a natural consequence is a soup of microwave radiation.

3) Structure formation

We look out into the sky and use telescopes to take deep field exposures and we see something interesting, we see that you can pinpoint some distant galaxy clusters and draw rings around them with roughly the same diameter, and those rings contain other galaxy clusters.

How did this large scale structure form? It has such a awesome repeating pattern, and these are galaxies, not the occasional bits of gas. The pattern is so perfect, could it get there by chance?

Well this can be explained if the universe was hot and dense and slowly cooled. As it cools everything is approximately smooth, that is until something tips the balance, some slight density difference. this causes the first stars to form and live extremely short lives. As these stars explode, it seeds density waves. These density waves are all that is needed to allow large scale structure to begin to form, what results is a bubble like structure that expands outwards, the destiny wave propagates through the early universe and seeds the formation of super clusters.

This is exactly what Baryon acoustic oscillations would look like.

So this too seems to fit (indirectly) that the universe can form this structure in an easy to explain way if it started out hot and dense.

4) Light element evolution

If the universe started out with a finite energy, you would expect that going from energy into mass dominated you should be able to predict the quantities of chemical elements we observe in the universe. So we look at the above points 1 and 2 and we make a best guess about what we see, the levels of energy involved, and we predict how much hydrogen, deuterium tritium, helium, lithium there are when we look at gas clouds. (Atomic physics is pretty well established and looking at the composition of gas is not a new science) So we look at the calculations and we figure out the ratios of elements and we compare to what we see in reality. What we see is very close to the calculations. There are some discrepancies though these are less firm a statement of being incorrect because the measurement is not that great and has a lot of systematics. The fact we are able to predict the ratios within a good accuracy to begin with seems to point at the theory being quite a close match to reality.

5) AGN and Quasars.

The formation of galaxies is somewhat predictive of creating extremely large black holes at galactic centres. If material is fed into these, the material gets heated and the system can emit extremely intense radiation. This is a similar mechanism at Black body radiation, though the source of the energy is caused by gas friction and radiation baking as material spirals around the compact object.

So why does this matter? Well it matters because if the early universe was denser than it is now, when we look at objects at large distances, we might expect them to behave differently when they are active. More material means that galactic centres are more active, the energy output of an active galactic nucleus might be expected to be higher in the early universe because matter is much denser,

This is exactly what we observe, we do see active nucleus, but they do not have the same intensity or energy spectra as those that are further away. It suggests that the level of 'feeding' is higher as we 'look back in time'

This is not suggested in a universe that is flat and infinite, this is however a natural prediction of a universe that started out hot and dense.




OK so thats hopefully the big bang as a theory put forward with evidence that doesn't sound like magic. What might sound like magic, is the origin of all this... science claims no knowledge of the cause of it, just wild speculation... what happened afterwards and during the early universe however science claims the hot dense universe appears to be reflected by a multitude of observational data.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Mary Rose

ErosA433
Might as well say it is all magic.


The Big Bang model is a proposal of an act of magic.

The Gravity Model is being falsified by observations, causing scientists to invent things to look for to make it work.


Is this your belief of any actual research? So far Relativistic predictions have exactly matched gravity this is how we are able to send spacecraft to mars. If it were even slightly off from our calculations it would slam into mars or miss it completely. So saying are models are wrong isnt true we can calculate its effects with alot of precision which means observations line up rather nicely would you say?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Newton? You do know that if you do any good courses in physics you are told all of those things.

Newton was not a great physicist he dedicated most of his lifetime to alchemy and being a mystic. He was reported to also be a terrible teacher, with students opting to not attend his lectures.

He did however find time to theorize gravity, and come up with integral mathematics and produce the same theorem as another person at the time. He was an interesting character

Further more the apple dropping from the tree was an analogy, not a real event.

Science by no means elevates him into a god like status, it is everyone else that does. It is ALSO PROOF that if someone who by todays standards is into some pretty odd things, gets something right, and is able to show that it is right and works, that it gets accepted.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Mary Rose
The Gravity Model is being falsified by observations, causing scientists to invent things to look for to make it work.



It is as dragon already pointed out not to be a correct statement.

We look at the planets in space, their orbital periods and ALL of them work against the mathematics with the exception of mercury, which goes around in a little bit of an odd way.

We look at Jupiter and look at the moons, the orbital periods of the moons can be solved to give you the mass of the host, these calculations are possible to do quite easily and you will see that for no object other than mercury does the gravitational model not work... and even for mercury it works at a 95% level...

Mercury can be explained once you update the gravitational model of Newton with relativity and the bending of space by the sun. Once you include that, BAM it works.

What else? Well if the gravitational well bends space-time, then you might expect light not to travel exactly straight but may be curved because of those bends... that is exactly what we see during solar eclipses. Stars observed just off the limb of the solar disk once covered by the moon are NOT in the correct location, and their offset can be used in effect to 'weigh' the sun.

Guess what? those calculations give a pretty good measurement compared to others of what the mass of the sun should be.

We take that and we look at the orbits of binary stars, it also seems to work, you can look at close eclipsing binaries and use the light curve and optics to figure out the masses, when you put those masses and distances into calculations.. guess what? it works.


So where the model appears not to work is when you look at galactic rotation curves and matter densities out to large distances.

For a model that works on the scale of relatively small rocks orbiting each other (say 50km chunks) right out to objects at ranges of light years... and it all wrks perfectly fine... to throw it away and say that it is totally wrong, seems a little odd don't you think?
edit on 10-3-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Where did the giant amoeba that was all matter in the universe come from in the big bang theory?


Ok wow giant amoeba apparently your version is alot different than mine on what the big bang was like. Matter in the universe was caused by an imbalance due to rapid expansion of space.



What is the nature of force, what repeal and attracts?


Which force electrostatic since were discussing electric universe? Well it would be electrons i explained this earlier.


How does gravity work?


Mass causes a gravity well to form in space time which warps the space time around the mass been proven experimentally.The correct question you wanted to ask would be was how does mass cause a distortion in space time. This would mean we would have to discuss a couple of different theories. But since you didnt your questions answered. Though ill say the electric universe model trying to replace gravity with field lines we wouldnt even be here earth would never have formed.


Why don't you answer these questions and prove you know something about science?


Ok i answered your questions your turn where does the energy the sun needs come from if not from fusion?


The electric/plasma universe theory doesn't claim to explain everything.


And therein lies the problem if it doesnt explain everything and we see it doesnt match the universe we look at than theres no point in it even being proposed.Because in science we are trying to find something that explains everything.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

ErosA433



.
.
.
OK so thats hopefully the big bang as a theory put forward with evidence that doesn't sound like magic. What might sound like magic, is the origin of all this... science claims no knowledge of the cause of it, just wild speculation... what happened afterwards and during the early universe however science claims the hot dense universe appears to be reflected by a multitude of observational data.


all this "measurements" that led to Big Band theory have the light speed as constant.
We know here on Earth what the speed of light is,
is it the same a few parsec away or maybe is it slowing down over large distances, we can not know for sure.
If light slows down the distances are wrong and anything following it is.

Remember how Einstein never wanted the Quantum Theory to be true ?
Now QT is so "powerful" in the scientific world
but this was not enough, so String Theory followed
what comes next?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   

KrzYma
is it the same a few parsec away or maybe is it slowing down over large distances, we can not know for sure.
The possibility of the speed of light or other things thought to be constants may vary in time or space has been considered. Here's an example: Is the fine structure constant really constant? The question is whether any evidence can be found that the constants are not constant, and we are always open to new evidence. Got any?


so String Theory followed
what comes next?
Last time I checked, string theory had not yet been accepted due to lack of evidence, though it's mainstream enough an idea to allow people seeking evidence for it to use the LHC and other CERN facilities to test the ideas. As someone pointed out the term "string theory" is somewhat of a misnomer; maybe it should be called "string hypothesis" based on the available evidence. But I don't think it's got much to do with electric sun so maybe we should stick to that topic in this thread?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

KrzYma

ErosA433



.
.
.
OK so thats hopefully the big bang as a theory put forward with evidence that doesn't sound like magic. What might sound like magic, is the origin of all this... science claims no knowledge of the cause of it, just wild speculation... what happened afterwards and during the early universe however science claims the hot dense universe appears to be reflected by a multitude of observational data.


all this "measurements" that led to Big Band theory have the light speed as constant.
We know here on Earth what the speed of light is,
is it the same a few parsec away or maybe is it slowing down over large distances, we can not know for sure.
If light slows down the distances are wrong and anything following it is.

Remember how Einstein never wanted the Quantum Theory to be true ?
Now QT is so "powerful" in the scientific world
but this was not enough, so String Theory followed
what comes next?



We already know the speed of light isnt constant it depends on the medium it travels through however Unless stated otherwise, the term "speed of light" is understood to mean the speed of light in a vacuum. which indeed we can measure and since space is a vacuum this tells us the speed it travels. We didnt just make this up the reason why we are confident in the speed of light started in the 1600s by a man by the name of Olaus Roemer. He timed the differences in the orbital motions of the moons of Jupiter from their furthest point in orbit to their closest. The amazing part is he was right since he had a lot of variables he didnt know like the earths actual orbit.In 1849 a man by the name of Louis Fizeau whos experiment timed light using a wheel and mirrors aka the cogwheel experiment. After experimenting with a creating a new interferometer he had accurate knowledge of the interference of light waves and the interference patterns of heat waves. This knowledge helped contribute to the idea that light is not just a stream of particles, but more of a wave of light.he also is the first to to think of doppler shifts as being related to light.His experiments would lead to others using his methods such as rotating mirrors,as the instruments got better the speeds became more accurate for example in 1862 the speed of light was calculated at 298,000,000 m/s. In 1977 a laser experiment calculated it at 299,792,457.6 m/s. This actually leads to a change in 1983 from a standard meter to a new version. Ameter is now the time it takes light to travel in 1/299,792,458 of a second. This was done because no meter bar was needed any country anywhere can now know the exact distance of a meter but i digress.

We have measures the speed of light through gases and liquids but somehow you have convinced yourself the speed of light works differently in the entire universe except for this planet we call earth does that really make sense to you? Why are we different from the rest of the universe what makes us so special? Even to this day we are constantly searching for the possibility light doesnt travel the way we think it does as yet have found nothing contrary to our beliefs. And if its happening trust me we will find it and than we will need a new theory, until than we can only go with what we observe. Science is all about discovery its not about hiding facts contrary to whatever you have been told or believe.
edit on 3/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

KrzYma
all this "measurements" that led to Big Band theory have the light speed as constant.
We know here on Earth what the speed of light is,
is it the same a few parsec away or maybe is it slowing down over large distances, we can not know for sure.
If light slows down the distances are wrong and anything following it is.

Remember how Einstein never wanted the Quantum Theory to be true ?
Now QT is so "powerful" in the scientific world
but this was not enough, so String Theory followed
what comes next?



The last part is a little bit of a fallacy. Quantum theory is powerful because it explains so much of what we observe, it explains the existence of many physical things. You know? That laser you have in your cd/dvd/blue-ray it is impossible to make without understanding the properties of quantum theory. If you made one by accident, you would quickly be trying to figure it out because it would appear to be magically producing light in a weird way.

String theory is not even proven to be right, it is one of a few theories attempting to combine all we know about energy and mass into one theory. It predicts a few things, but these predictions are thus far not testable. String theory should not be held up there as some kind of godlike theory... unless it can accurately predict things that we are able to see from first principles. Right now, there are many string theories... not just one.


Well the light slowing down theories only have prevalence outside of access to multiple forms of measurements. We are able to get quite a lot more than a few parsecs with multiple measurements.

Variable speed of light theories have to modify a hell of a lot of things, and have to add a multitude of changes to current theories, because much of what we see and do, works to very high accuracy. They are quite interesting, but they offer a great deal of complexity and fine tuning in comparison to what we theorize now.

for example, we see red-shift, but if that means the speed of light was slower out at that distance, then speeding it up for us as it gets to us would change the frequency to the blue, not the red, So that means the speed of light has to be faster out at those distances, and slows down / tires as it gets to us. The speed of light being different would affect other thing too such as atomic physics, and so we should expect not just a simple redishift of spectral lines but something more complicated.

The reason I say this is because if the speed of light changes, then you are can interpret that as a spatial change also, or a combination. It makes the different theories somewhat hazy and there should probably be a good defined line between gravitational spatial distortion/Lorentz contraction and expansion, and the speed of light changing.

You might ask... why don't we see frequency shift when looking at refractive index and optics, but the two effects are quite different and i don't think can be shown as analogous.


The Roemer experiment is an awesome one, and one at uni we tried to recreate... we failed due to the time of year, but it is pretty awesome
edit on 10-3-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
How is it evident?


Like I said, it's evident to me, and it probably can't be proven.

I think trying to prove a theory of how the energy that powers the universe and the sun got here is a waste of time.

More important is to discern how the universe functions and how we can work in harmony with nature.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Like I said, it's evident to me, and it probably can't be proven.

I think trying to prove a theory of how the energy that powers the universe and the sun got here is a waste of time.

More important is to discern how the universe functions and how we can work in harmony with nature.



This seems a contradiction, We look out into the universe and we have a pretty good theory of how it all works and fits together... first you say that the mainstream is wrong... and now you say that actually we are right because we are trying to figure out how it functions, but you don't think we are right about any of it...

did i just miss a step of logic there? or maybe something else?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Mary Rose

Arbitrageur
How is it evident?


Like I said, it's evident to me, and it probably can't be proven.

I think trying to prove a theory of how the energy that powers the universe and the sun got here is a waste of time.

More important is to discern how the universe functions and how we can work in harmony with nature.
I'm having a hard time interpreting this. On the one hand you talk about discerning how the universe functions. Since the sun is the source of energy for most life on earth it's a pretty important part of the universe to us, and determining how it functions seems very relevant.

On the other hand you say "I think trying to prove a theory of how the energy that powers the universe and the sun got here is a waste of time." Doesn't this contradict your other statement? And since this is an electric sun thread, the question that has been repeatedly asked is, "what powers the sun?" (or what powers the electricity that powers the sun if you believe in electric sun).

If it can't be proven, doesn't that put the idea in the same category as ancient ideas like sacrificing virgins to appease the rain gods in order to make it rain? Scott and Thornhill at least pretend their electric sun ideas are somewhat scientific and could be proven if only the right observations were made, or were interpreted differently. But saying "it probably can't be proven" seems to mean the idea is not scientific, right?
edit on 10-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Mary Rose

Arbitrageur
How is it evident?


Like I said, it's evident to me, and it probably can't be proven.

I think trying to prove a theory of how the energy that powers the universe and the sun got here is a waste of time.

More important is to discern how the universe functions and how we can work in harmony with nature.



Look its obvious this is just a belief for you thats ok. But if you like id be happy to explain anything you have read involving electric universe and just tell you what science thinks of it and why. Because opinions change the more you learn trust me ive changed my opinion on alot as i got older. Maybe at least i can get you to believe scientists arent hiding big secrets or at least youll see how science works. I personally hate when people who doesnt understand the scientific process tries to say well science is wrong. Its like me trying to tell a brewer how to make beer and though i like to drink it clueless on what makes a good beer.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr, ErosA433, Arbitrageur
 



We already know the speed of light isnt constant it depends on the medium it travels through however Unless stated otherwise, the term "speed of light" is understood to mean the speed of light in a vacuum. which indeed we can measure and since space is a vacuum this tells us the speed it travels.


so you assume it is the same in the whole Galaxy ?

hmm... how is vacuum in space always the same, if the modern cosmology claims, there are "bubbles" of dark matter and all this is driven by dark energy, which is also not uniformly distributed over the observed Galaxy.
If vacuum really would be the same over the Galaxy there would be no need for dark matter to explain things in first place.

Don't you see the problem here ?
It's a loop
A causes B causes A

Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the EU theory, I'm questioning the standard model and EU is just another possibility
(and as I said somewhere, those theories outside there should not fight each other, but maybe complement to each other)


now...
One of the biggest questions ever asked was, why electrons don't fall into a proton.
Usually they don't, except they both together build a neutron, which is not very stable at all... WHY ??
Why is an neutron only stable in the nuclei and not outside ?


While the bound neutrons in nuclei can be stable (depending on the nuclide), free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (881.5±1.5 s).

Oh wait, neutron stars... how comes they are stable ???


A neutron star is a type of stellar remnant that can result from the gravitational collapse of a massive star during a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova event. Neutron stars are the densest and tiniest stars known to exist in the universe; although having only the diameter of about 10 km (6 mi), they may have a mass of several times that of the Sun. Neutron stars probably appear white to the naked eye.


are neutron stars just 15 minutes alive ??

I'm sure there is some kind of explanation you may present me, hopefully...

back to the atom...
I found this somewhere that shall be the more or less accurate explanation why the electrons don't fall into nuclei


The picture we often have of electrons as small objects circling a nucleus in well defined "orbits" is actually quite wrong. The positions of these electrons at any given time are not well-defined, but we CAN figure out the volume of space where we are likely to find a given electron if we do an experiment to look. For example, the electron in a hydrogen atom likes to occupy a spherical volume surrounding the proton. If you think of the proton as a grain of salt, then the electron is about equally likely to be found anywhere inside a ten foot radius sphere surrounding this grain, kind of like a cloud. The weird thing about that cloud is that its spread in space is related to the spread of possible momenta (or velocities) of the electron. So here's the key point, which we won't pretend to explain here. The more squashed in the cloud gets, the more spread out the range of momenta has to get. That's called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Big momenta mean big kinetic energies. So the cloud can lower its potential energy by squishing in closer to the nucleus, but when it squishes in too far its kinetic energy goes up more than its potential energy goes down. So it settles at a happy medium, and that gives the cloud and thus the atom its size.


this is stupid !

first experiment made, where the atom model comes from, was bombarding matter with electrons.
To measure the atoms size, right ?
That's how we know about nuclei being much much smaller then the whole atom itself.
How comes the electrons bounce of the nuclei in the first place ? Opposite charges attract, they should smash into proton and form a neutron.

They don't bounced of the nuclei, they bounced of the electrons... speak, atom model is not correct


Heisenberg's uncertainty principle... I can know the position but not the velocity or the velocity but not the position.
this is wave behavior, not particle behavior

I say...
electrons do not exist, its a potential difference to the existing protons, a counterpart to balance the charged state, a shadow if you like this term

Electrical potential is the separation between existing matter and its virtual counterpart - electron.
Magnetic current is the force that acts as balance force between them.

"But we have trapped electrons and did experiments with it"
HOW ?? using magnetic fields ?? sure, you have trapped the negative potential inside a magnetic field, not a particle - electron

electrons don't fall into protons because there is no such thing as electron as a particle
this is also why "electrons" can appear and disappear in QT, all you need is enough charge

OH... photoelectric effect.. Einstein's famous thing...
wave pressure of the EM field - Transverse Waves, compress into longitudinal or scalar waves.. "electrons"


now I wait for you, watchers of the "soled" truth, to take apart every single sentence one by one out of concept

(give me a million $ and I write a book about this)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

KrzYma
Don't you see the problem here ?
It's a loop
A causes B causes A

Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the EU theory, I'm questioning the standard model and EU is just another possibility
(and as I said somewhere, those theories outside there should not fight each other, but maybe complement to each other)
It does seem off topic to electric sun unless you can show where the electric sun model invokes these ideas, and it's not a complementary model. In fact there's not just one electric sun model, there are at least two of them, and they don't even agree with each other, and both are in contradiction with observation.

The 15 minutes you mention is for a free neutron. We don't know that much about neutron stars, but we do know a lot about how neutrons behave in atoms and they last a lot longer than 15 minutes when they are part of a stable nucleus.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

KrzYma
Don't you see the problem here ?
It's a loop
A causes B causes A

Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the EU theory, I'm questioning the standard model and EU is just another possibility
(and as I said somewhere, those theories outside there should not fight each other, but maybe complement to each other)
It does seem off topic to electric sun unless you can show where the electric sun model invokes these ideas, and it's not a complementary model. In fact there's not just one electric sun model, there are at least two of them, and they don't even agree with each other, and both are in contradiction with observation.

The 15 minutes you mention is for a free neutron. We don't know that much about neutron stars, but we do know a lot about how neutrons behave in atoms and they last a lot longer than 15 minutes when they are part of a stable nucleus.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


are you sure you are not a politician ? they also always never answer the questions, take all apart to the point it suits them leaving more disorder then before and pretending to know everything ??
you like a priest in the church, sure to be on the right side but giving no explanations at all.

what a waste of time with you !



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

KrzYma
are you sure you are not a politician ? they also always never answer the questions, take all apart to the point it suits them leaving more disorder then before and pretending to know everything ??
you like a priest in the church, sure to be on the right side but giving no explanations at all.

what a waste of time with you !
You're not answering the most important question, like what the apparently off topic stuff has to do with the electric sun topic. You're more than welcome to ask these questions in a thread where they would be on-topic, or start a new thread where they are on-topic in which case I might even try to answer them.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


Ok alot of questions so ill try not to miss any but lets see if we can throw some light on the situation.ok your first question was




hmm... how is vacuum in space always the same, if the modern cosmology claims, there are "bubbles" of dark matter and all this is driven by dark energy, which is also not uniformly distributed over the observed Galaxy.If vacuum really would be the same over the Galaxy there would be no need for dark matter to explain things in first place.

Don't you see the problem here ?
It's a loop
A causes B causes A


Well first let me say if you were not aware of this but the electric universe model would require this constant also for the flow of electrons to work properly. Now to your question about dark matter you seem to be under the assumption its everywhere but its actually around galaxies. How do we know this through gravitational lensing. But the key point to this is we know where its at because we can see its effects. So that is how we know if indeed our observation is being effected by dark matter or if its traveling through the vacuum of space. Now its odd that you would even think this as some circular logic in the first place because dark matter has no effect on the actually speed of light only its direction of travel. Here this will explain how we can tell where dark matter is. We may not know what it is but we know its there.

lsst.org...




Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the EU theory, I'm questioning the standard model and EU is just another possibility
(and as I said somewhere, those theories outside there should not fight each other, but maybe complement to each other)


You making a false assumption here for one questioning a model an advocating one that cant even explain the old model could is going backwards not forward. But that aside for a minute every cosmologist knows electricity is involved in the universe and do take its effects inot account. Its just not the dominate force in the universe like thunderbolts would want you to believe because than they would have to once again alter there theory.




now...
One of the biggest questions ever asked was, why electrons don't fall into a proton.
Usually they don't, except they both together build a neutron, which is not very stable at all... WHY ??
Why is an neutron only stable in the nuclei and not outside ?


Your also looking at the wrong way electrons dont actually orbit anything but instead exist as standing waves. The lowest possible energy an electron can take is therefore its more like plucking a string on a guitar we see the vibrations. But that aside we also cant have two particles in the same space at the same time with the exception of bosons. Why the electrons retain particle like-properties such as the same electrical charge and discrete spin. Now why is it stable in a nuclei has to do with its energy state and its a good time to bring in your next question.




Oh wait, neutron stars... how comes they are stable ???


The decay of a neutron into proton + electron in an earthly laboratory is a transition from high-energy state to low-energy. However, in the crushing gravitational field of a neutron star, the proton + electron are in a higher energy state than the neutron. So the energy situation--with respect to free neutrons--is reversed, which is why neutrons in neutron stars do not decay. We also see this same thing in a neutron in nuclei it is the lowest energy state possible without adding energy.




first experiment made, where the atom model comes from, was bombarding matter with electrons.
To measure the atoms size, right ?
That's how we know about nuclei being much much smaller then the whole atom itself.
How comes the electrons bounce of the nuclei in the first place ? Opposite charges attract, they should smash into proton and form a neutron.


Well you dont understand what a neutron is so lets take a look at the reverse first. When a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and neutrino, it also releases energy, 780,000 eV, as the sum of the kinetic energy of the 3 particles. It is unreasonably difficult to get 3 separate particles to collide exactly at the same time.Its really hard to get the ghost-like neutrino to react on command with an electron and proton.This makes it difficult to form a neutrino well close to impossible with the exception of making one out of pure excess energy, from the collision between an electron and a proton.But you are talking a massive amount of energy.

Now the last part of your post you lost me it turned into a jumble of a lot of confused concepts so ill start simple what do you think a virtual electron is and where does it come from?


edit on 3/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join