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: 17
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
First go back and read Dragonridr's post on page 16, and follow it with this one for a double up of answers
Great post there Dragon seems like we both went for similar things at the same time


A neutron bound in an atomic nuclei is no longer a single particle to be considered on its own, it is part of a pare or more of particles. This bound state can be considered an energy well, holding the proton and neutrons together by the strong nuclear force. This system is completely different to that of a free neutron.

This system has to maintain conservation laws, and bound states of particles give rise to stability by making it energetically forbidden to decay, because the decay product has a higher energy configuration than the current nucleus.

There is evidence that nucleons have excitation and 'energy levels' in exactly the same way as electron clouds do. Were a nucleon can be excited and decay back to a ground state. This is what gamma radiation comes from. Gamma radiation always precedes a radiation event such as an alpha or a beta. The alpha or beta leaves the daughter nucleus in an excited state and the nucleus then emits a gamma ray in order to lower its excitation.

Studying these events give evidence for a shell structure for the arrangement or quantum formation of the nucleus.

Oh but how can you be sure you ask? Well because we got pretty good at modelling things, we have postulated that rare decays can occur when for example the energy level of a single beta decay makes the decay energetically forbidden. A succession of beta decays (say 2 of them) however is energetically fine.

Does this phenomenon, predicted in a hand full of isotopes occur in nature? Yes yes it does!

Does this model appear to work? Yes yes it does!


On the atom, electrons are bound by both quantum energy levels of the potential well as well as by spin angular momentum. The zero level of the atomic system is not zero, but has a minimum value. Electrons then occupy a probability function that states the region over which they should be found. This region for some atoms can allow the electron to exist inside the nucleus. When this occurs it is called a k-capture event where the inner most k-shell electron is captured by a proton and turns into a neutron, and the atom emits a neutrino.
Because the inner most energy level is now empty, typically an electron with drop down, emitting a photon, and take its place in order to again, reach a lower energy configuration. The atom is now ionized.

This process is observed in many atomic species and the k-shell capture energy is observed and gives us a photon of a wavelength we can predict. Once more, the models work just fine. They predict the event, and we do observe it.


A neutron star is an extreme object, it cannot be fairly compared to a free neutron. A free neutron even in atmospheric gas, is in comparative vacuum compared to being part of a neutron star.

So how do we know about neutron stars, their sizes and that they are composed mainly neutrons? Well we first need to begin with atomic physics and another object, a White dwarf.

The white dwarf class of stars, are stars that we observe to be very hot, blue/white stars but emit much less light than we see from a white hot star which is burning lots of hydrogen and producing lots of energy and producing a white hot black body spectrum at its photosphere. So white dwarfs appear comparatively tiny! So what are they?

Well it was postulated that these objects are stellar remnants of stars of mass anywhere between about 0.5 to 8 solar masses, at the end of their life, they blow off most of the outer material during the red giant stage. As they do so, they leave a core that is running out of nuclear fuel, the core compresses though despite the compression cannot achieve fusion. Rather than collapse in on itself and form a black hole, something stop it. But what?

Well if you can make a material so dense that atomic energy levels begin directly interacting, and you start to fill up quantum levels by smushing the atoms into one another, similar to that of covalent bonding, except it isn;t the joining of the valency bands, it is compression of energy levels by the energy potential of the atoms being affected by their neighbours. This gives you a repulsive affect, as you say, coulomb attraction and repulsion should mean that the electron clouds repulse each other. The white dwarf star is a star that no fusion is occurring, but the material is held from collapse by electron degeneracy pressure.

This material would be thus extremely dense. So how can we prove this? Well we look at binary systems with a white dwarf star. The orbital dynamics allow you to deduce mass. So we look at them and we do see that we have a star that is always less than 1.44 solar masses.... This mass limit of 1.44 is the theoretically predicted limit of chandrasekhar, and it is the maximum mass of a compact object being held up by electron degeneracy. It is calculated from our knowledge of quantum physics... and it has an observational output, and that observational limit is observed in nature.

So how does this relate? Well if a star ends its life with more than 1.44 solar masses, then the star continues to collapse, the electron clouds begin to compress and it so develops that the probability function starts to overlap them with that of the atomic nuclei they are bound to. The electrons then begin to capture on the protons, and convert to neutrons. The star then halts its collapse due to the filling of nuclear energy levels analogous to that of the atomic spectra, here the neutrons are held compressed close to the density of an atomic nucleus. This is known as neutron degeneracy pressure.

What evidence do we have? Well in 1987, a star decided that it would go poof, The original star was a Blue super giant, what was observed was a huge neutrino flux in 3 different detectors around the world... These detectors typically saw neutrino events at a rate of 1 or 2 a day, saw a hand full (in some cases a couple of hand full) of neutrino events in 13 seconds. This would suggest evidence that the neutrino flux from this event was absolutely enormous!

Remember the k-capture above? Well imagine that happening in about 2 solar masses of material... that is ALOT of neutrinos.


I hope that this rather long read can help you understand where the current models explain your questions.


edit on 10-3-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Looks like good stuff. Sorry, another long day, and I have been goofing off on the American flag thread.

I promise to engage with you on alternative theories I love tomorrow.

Cause I think Mary Rose is on to something here.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


It is all about structure.

The force is structure, how is it not obvious.

I will find time tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



where does the electric sun theory get the energy from to power the sun?
You seem to have an odd way of asking questions but this is quite simple really and I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned in this thread yet.

I don’t know about the electric sun theory but in physics a charged body moving through a magnetic field creates an electric current. It’s call electromagnetic induction. You can either move a charged body through a magnetic field or move the magnetic field against a charged body to create an electric current. An example of this is an electric generator.

Here is a nice lecture on electromagnetic induction from MIT.

edit on 3/11/2014 by Devino because: added video



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


a solar probe will be launched in 2018…
Bridgman has invited anyone who favors the electric sun model to show their energy density calculations to engineers designing the spacecraft…
Last time I checked nobody from the EU community had offered any specific calculations…
Where did you check and better yet what’s your source for the invite of “anyone who favors the electric sun model”?

I did find this from NASA

Last year, NASA invited top researchers around the world to submit proposals detailing possible science investigations for the pioneering spacecraft. Thirteen proposals were received and five have been selected:
Data collection is always usefull. I hope this mission goes well, maybe we will all learn something.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Devino
reply to post by dragonridr
 



where does the electric sun theory get the energy from to power the sun?
You seem to have an odd way of asking questions but this is quite simple really and I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned in this thread yet.

I don’t know about the electric sun theory but in physics a charged body moving through a magnetic field creates an electric current. It’s call electromagnetic induction. You can either move a charged body through a magnetic field or move the magnetic field against a charged body to create an electric current. An example of this is an electric generator.


I suggest in the future you read the entire thread. you in no way show how the sun would produce the voltage needed. Next in physics your answer is wrong you actually have if backwards. But what causes an electric current is magnetic flux. For example you mention a generator its a change in the magnetic flux passing through a loop of conductive wire this causes an electromotive force, and therefore an electric current in the loop. Please read everyone is familiar with induction.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Devino
Where did you check and better yet what’s your source for the invite of “anyone who favors the electric sun model”?
Here:

The challenge still stands for EU theorists to predict the intensity of the particle environment using THEIR solar model for the upcoming 'Solar Probe' mission
If you look at his older posts on electric universe topics there are often people trying to defend electric universe/electric sun in the comments, and you can even find some back and forth debate between him and one of the electric sun model promoters, Don Scott for which I already provided you a link when Scott was trying to defend his claim about the Grand Canyon being formed by electricity since he thinks the grand canyon looks similar to an electrical effect in lichen.

But as I write this, there are currently no comments relating to Bridgman's challenge at that link. I also infer from the use of the word "STILL" in "the challenge still stands" that the challenge was previously issued in one of his prior posts, but I haven't looked through all of them, but I have read some. People who have responded to his challenges in the past often seem to be technically ignorant and get their heads handed to them when asked simple questions. Don Scott's technical background is a little better, but he's not a physicist like Dr Bridgman, but more importantly, if you read his replies to Dr Bridgman and know anything bout the topics, you would see his replies are technically very weak and lacking evidence.

For example Don Scott's reply to the electric grand canyon was essentially "If it looks like a duck...." which even in the context of that expression, it doesn't. One obvious difference is that the lichen effect is not nearly as three-dimensional as the grand canyon, and beyond that I don't think it looks that much like the lichen effect and there is really no model or evidence for why solid rock in the grand canyon would respond the same way to lightning as organic tissue, as in the rest of "electric universe", where what models exist are not well defined enough to test (like Bridgman's challenge in this case), and where the observational; evidence not only fails to support electric universe, it rejects it.
edit on 11-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Devino
I don’t know about the electric sun theory but in physics a charged body moving through a magnetic field creates an electric current. It’s call electromagnetic induction. You can either move a charged body through a magnetic field or move the magnetic field against a charged body to create an electric current. An example of this is an electric generator.


Well you kind of miss the point, induction is well understood, but induction transfers energy from physical movement to emf so what drives this physical movement?

It is like saying "OK so we generate electricity by turning this crank, we now have enough power to power a city"

And someone asks... "Well who turns the crank?"

And the reply from the EU people is... "It is induction, are you stupid? god talking to you is impossible"

The someone asks again "No really, if you don't turn the crank the generator won't work"

EU people "Oh its fine if you don't understand, you are into mainstream science."


So a dynamo effect is understood, you can generate magnetic fields and electric fields with the movement of material from A->B it is how we believe the Earth's magnetic field comes from. For the sun, from how we see it and the surface effects it has (sunspots) it is due to shearing material in different layers as the sun rotates... but again, the magnetic and electric fields generated as we observe have to be absolutely ENORMOUS in order for any of the planets to be held in place, for the sun to hold its material outward too, the mechanism requires something else to be happening, the flow of material cannot be occurring at insane velocities on the inside of the sun, it doesn't support what we see from the outside.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433 and dragonridr
 


Thank you guys for your time



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


anytime



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


I suggest in the future you read the entire thread.
I read it. A lot of rhetorical BS to wade through and I wasn’t wearing the correct boots.


you in no way show how the sun would produce the voltage needed.
I didn’t know I was supposed to. You mean there’s homework!?
So how would one go about showing the voltage needed to be produced by the Sun? It seems that the amount of voltage induced would be proportional to velocity and Magnetic field strength. So what is the total velocity of the Sun and what is the galactic field strength?


Next in physics your answer is wrong you actually have if backwards.
I have it backwards? That’s funny seeing how it works both ways, forwards/backwards…lol
An electric current produces a magnetic field and a magnetic field induces an electric current. It works either way.


But what causes an electric current is magnetic flux.
Yes, it does happen. Glad we agree.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The challenge still stands for EU theorists to predict the intensity of the particle environment using THEIR solar model for the upcoming 'Solar Probe' mission
I can’t view your link but this excerpt sounds like great news. I’m glad they are offering collaboration between different scientific fields.


I already provided you a link when Scott was trying to defend his claim about the Grand Canyon being formed by electricity since he thinks the grand canyon looks similar to an electrical effect in lichen.
What link is this? I remember showing that this was in fact the Thunderbolts theory, not Dr Scott’s.
Effects in lichen? I don’t remember this at all. I do remember a comparison between the canyon and Lichtenberg figures which I agreed with, they do have similarities.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Well you kind of miss the point
I thought the point was to answer the question, “Where could the Sun be getting its energy from”.


induction is well understood, but induction transfers energy from physical movement to emf so what drives this physical movement?
I would suppose gravity.


So a dynamo effect is understood
This theory seems to be a standalone explanation. How could you produce a magnetic field without electricity and outside of any existing magnetic field? Magnetic fields and electric currents are dynamic interactions. They do not exist alone, they are mutually inclusive.


the magnetic and electric fields generated as we observe have to be absolutely ENORMOUS in order for any of the planets to be held in place
Did I miss something? Where did gravity go?


the mechanism requires something else to be happening, the flow of material cannot be occurring at insane velocities on the inside of the sun, it doesn't support what we see from the outside.
I don’t understand this quote.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Iknow where the sun gets its energy from i even posted the amounts of energy it uses if you read. But ill make my question simpler for you. Instead of asking where the sun gets its power from lets look at the sun itself. In order for electricity to power the sun the sun would require a positive in order for electrons to flow. The result of this is we would see electrons being attracted to it producing the heat and light still wouldnt explain neutrinos however. Now we have observed the solar wind and it consists of positive and negative ions in equal proportion. So how would this flow of electrons occur into the sun magic? Now if your trying to say the magnetic field in the sun creates the electricity to power the sun what causes the magnetic field? The magnetic field of the sun averages 1 gauss we call this its magnetic density. Now this is far too low to produce the energy needed in plasma to power the sun. The sun produces 384.6 yotta watts per second how would you explain the discrepancies. This is why i said read the posts.

As far as gravity your right where did it go you and i are clueless on that one EU seems to think its not important. I understand you did a fly by and didnt read i see that but your welcome to join the conversation i believe we are going to get an explination for this missing energy.
edit on 3/11/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Devino
Did I miss something? Where did gravity go?
That's what mainstream science wants to know from electric universe proponents, who say that gravity is electric, which according to mainstream science isn't the same as gravity. Here is a quote from something Thornhill wrote:

www.holoscience.com...

What is gravity?

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.
That's not what mainstream science calls gravity. In fact attempts to find a link between gravity and electromagnetism have been made, but no link has been found, making gravity the one fundamental force that isn't unified with the others.


Devino
I can’t view your link but this excerpt sounds like great news.
Sorry I messed up the link, here is what I meant to post, from which the above quote came:

Electric Universe: A Short Summary of How It Fails

I also found an earlier request, or "challenge"...no replies there either (which references even earlier requests for which he says he only gets excuses):

A Challenge to Electric Sun Supporters


I have repeatedly challenged EU supporters and 'theorists' to demonstrate how details of the heliosphere environment are calculated, but have received nothing but excuses (see Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'). ...

Two new solar missions are under development by NASA and ESA, Solar Probe Plus (Wikipedia) and Solar Orbiter (Wikipedia), respectively. Solar Orbiter will occupy a circular orbit inside the orbit of Mercury (at 0.284AU). Solar Probe Plus will have a highly elliptical orbit, from between the orbit of Earth and Venus, down to about 10 solar radii from the Sun (0.034AU)

These are things that scientists and engineers who REALLY build satellites must be able to do to have these types of jobs. Real engineers can build real things.

What do the cosmic electricians of EU tell us about these issues? Are they going to claim it is all guesswork? Are they going to claim it is all made up? Perhaps they will invoke magically undetectable electrons and ions? Can our hypothetical EU theorist demonstrate to his employer the type and amount of shielding that will be needed for these missions, or are they going to be fired for incompetence?



Devino
What link is this? I remember showing that this was in fact the Thunderbolts theory, not Dr Scott’s.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Effects in lichen? I don’t remember this at all. I do remember a comparison between the canyon and Lichtenberg figures which I agreed with, they do have similarities.
You're right I stand corrected, it's Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass, but I still say that grass is organic and responds differently to electricity than rocks in the Grand Canyon do.

It also seems like a cop out to say it's in Scott's book but it's not Scott's theory. If it's in his book, he certainly has some ownership of putting it in his book, even if the idea started elsewhere, doesn't he?

edit on 11-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Let's start with the first post on the Big Bang theory.

That we see red shift at great distances could also be an indication that the speed of light is not constant.

As stated, we already know light speed changes when it goes through the medium of water, so it is not such a stretch to think that the same could be true when the light passes near the sun, if it is forced through a medium different from the rest of stellar space. Then we look out at stars and see the same thing. We then find a relationship between gravitational/force effects in other solar systems, and the orbits of bodies around them that indicate this warping of light is due to mass, but it could also be that the medium around stars is also related to mass, or even that the medium around stars and the stars mass are intricately related.

That we see background radiation could just as easily indicate an average temperature to deep space.

The universe could also have this structure if it once hotter, and cooler before that.

One thing we do know is that the sine wave in the way things change is a well establish shape, and we see this relationship between change and time everywhere, and it is therefore very reasonable to expect that for the universe, change would follow the same pattern.

The last evidence, about looking deeper into space, and thereby further back in time suffers from the same problems as the first points.

If we look back at the op, Pioneers voyage out of our solar system found something we didn't expect, a wide membrane of plasma surrounding our solar system. The vacuum in space is not consistent. How much differing densities in space effect the speed of light, possibly by a very tiny amount, but we are talking about a vast distance, and a vast amount of time, so tiny changes in speed over very long distance would have a very large affect. What are the odds that in deep space, between galaxies, light moves much faster. I would say pretty good, especially when you consider the ramification of quantum entanglement.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




The vacuum in space is not consistent. How much differing densities in space effect the speed of light, possibly by a very tiny amount, but we are talking about a vast distance, and a vast amount of time, so tiny changes in speed over very long distance would have a very large affect.

Plasma may scatter light but it does not change its wavelength.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, to disprove that the speed of light is not a constant, we can start with the evidence that there is no such thing as a constant. The only constant we know is that everything we know is constantly changing. It would be an extreme oddity of the speed of light was a constant.

Then we can add to the growing body of evidence that the vacuum of space is not a vacuum at all, but actually filled with plasma, whose density changes a great deal.

Lastly, our biggest problem in determining that the the speed of light is constant, is our extremely limited ability to measure the speed of light. We can't duplicate the environment of space, we don't know how deep the vacuum of space is, and we can only measure the speed of light over a very very tiny amount of time, that pushes our best instrumentation to its limits.

The bigger fact is that we have very little evidence that the speed of light is a constant.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





The bigger fact is that we have very little evidence that the speed of light is a constant.

Actually there is a lot of evidence. The same observations which confirm special relativity show us that the speed of light is a constant.

Falsifying the speed of light of as a constant has not been accomplished. Demonstrating it has. Repeatedly.

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Saying that electrons explain electrostatic force is like saying gravitrons explain gravity.

You have yet to explain what is the nature of the force itself.

Like say an electron has a shape and was tensile, and resistance to the shape resulted in the tensile nature of the atom to exert a force to resist that which was pressing up against its shape.

The gravity well concept is not close to being proven. A 2 dimensional model in a 3 dimensional world.

Fusion is a form of plasma, same as electricity, the energy is form and structure.

Plasma science actually matches the universe as we know it far better than quantum mechanics.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join