Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 18
55
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   

poet1b
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.
The odds that it moves "much faster" are pretty close to zero. The odds that it moves a perhaps too small to measure smidgen faster are not as bad, but good luck measuring the difference of the speed of light though a vacuum of 1 atom per cubic meter and 10 or even 100 atoms per cubic meter. What am I basing these odds on?

Just look at the speed of light in Earth's atmosphere, a moderately dense collection of gases, though if compared to the gases or plasmas in space is extremely dense. Let's use this example where the atmosphere has a refractive index of 1.003:

The Speed of Light Through Earth's Atmosphere

let's say zero degree Celsius at one atm, which is pretty much at surface level, water level. And the index of refraction here is 1.003. Now, if we divide three time seven to the eighth by 1.003, we get that the speed of light here is 2.997 time ten to the eight meters per second. So as you can see, it changes very little from three to here where practically fairly close to three. So, because we changed very little, we generally don't consider air a good refractor, and thus one of the things that you should know. My name is Eylene Pirez, and I'm an astrophysicist, and this is the speed of light through Earth's atmosphere.
So let's say you have a refractive index in a less dense medium of 1.00000001. How much will that affect the speed of light? Based on this math I think we can rule out the idea that "in deep space, between galaxies, light moves much faster", because we have ways to estimate the density of interstellar gas and plasma, and while the densities vary by region, none are that dense compared to Earth's atmosphere.

Look for example at planetary nebulae which we can see and are way less dense than Earth's atmosphere:

Planetary nebula

A typical planetary nebula is roughly one light year across, and consists of extremely rarefied gas, with a density generally from 100 to 10,000 particles per cm^3. (The Earth's atmosphere, by comparison, contains 2.5×10^19 particles per cm^3.) Young planetary nebulae have the highest densities, sometimes as high as 10^6 particles per cm^3. As nebulae age, their expansion causes their density to decrease.
Even the sun's corona is only 10^9 to 10^10 particles per cm^3, so none of these densities compare to the Earth's 2.5×10^19 particles per cm^3, and the speed of light is not much slower in Earth's atmosphere. So this idea of much faster speeds of light in deep space doesn't hold up. Here's M57 the Ring Nebula. You can see it:

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




posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




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

Fusion is a process. Plasma is not.
edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


The sun is a very large mass moving at a rapid speed spining around the galaxy, which is moving very rapidly through the universe.

I don't know who is turning the crank, but things are spinning.



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




I don't know who is turning the crank, but things are spinning.

hint



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You don't know that.

I would like a better emoticon to imitate the look on your avatar's face.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That just explain that the crank is turning, not who is turning the crank.




posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I am too tired to put together my explanation tonight.

I will get back to you tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

God.


Better now? Works for some people.

But if not God, is electricity a better answer?
Wait..let me fix that...is Electricity a better answer?
edit on 3/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by Phage
 


That just explain that the crank is turning, not who is turning the crank.
As Phage's link explained, it's the skaters.

OK not exactly but the skater analogy explains why the rotation speeds up. It can start from the slight tug of a neighboring gas cloud or star through gravity as explained here:

www.gresham.ac.uk... (from transcript link)

Consider a large cloud of molecular gas and dust about to collapse under gravity to form a star, or an enormous halo of hot gas that will contract to create a galaxy. If that cloud has the even the very slightest rotational motion right at the start – such as might be caused by a slight tug on one side due to the gravitational pull of a neighbouring cloud or star – the conservation of angular momentum means that the final star (or galaxy) that results from the collapse of this cloud will rotate in the same direction, only much, much faster.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


From all observation.

All mass is in a constant state of motion.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

It appears that you have a rather typical reaction like so many that view alternative theories but it’s difficult to read through the sarcasm, it would help if you left it out. I don’t much care for it.

I am taking the road of devil’s advocate here in order to hopefully understand more about this subject. I never said I agree with the EU model now have I? I do find it entertaining though.


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
Yes, this is basically how I understand it. So if the Sun were a +electrode we should see an outflow of +ions and an inflow of electrons. Perhaps this inflow of electrons has yet to be discovered.
There is evidence for an outflow of +/-ions and electrons which does seem to be a problem. I don’t know enough about plasma physics or the nature of the solar wind to attempt to try and explain this but I haven’t dismissed it as impossible yet. This is one of several problems I have come across with the EU theory but I still find it entertaining.


So how would this flow of electrons occur into the sun
How would electrons normally flow in such a circuit?


Now if your trying to say the magnetic field in the sun creates the electricity to power the sun what causes the magnetic field
No actually I’m saying that it’s the magnetic field in the Milky Way galaxy that is inducing an electric current in the Sun. This in turn creates a magnetic field, heliosphere. Electricity and magnetic fields are mutually inclusive. If you have one then the other is there. Induction is known to occur so reason follows that this same thing is happening in space with all charged bodies moving in a magnetic field. The question I see is how much electricity is being induced.


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
In this model we would be interested in the strength on the galactic magnetic field since it is the Sun that is moving through this field. An electric current would be induced inside the Sun and this would create a magnetic field around the Sun, i.e. Heliosphere.
edit on 3/12/2014 by Devino because: Corrected misinterpretation



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


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:
I read that article and found it confusing. This appears to be a fatal flaw on Thronhill’s part. All I can say is, wow! Thanks for the link. We do not know what the cause for gravity is but I don’t think it is electric.

I’m not too fond of Tom Bridgman’s approach to EU theorists or rather his manner of debunking. For instance the title of that link is, “Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy”, which appears more as a derogatory statement. I don’t think Dr Bridgman’s approach leaves much room, if any, for discovery as he seems more intent on debunking, being right by proving someone else wrong. This is not a constructive position. I’ll try and read the rest when I get more time.


A Challenge to Electric Sun Supporters

We can only hope that his request is sincere and, more importantly, that someone seriously take up this challenge. It would be a shame if this solar mission failed due to some oversight or misunderstanding that could have been prevented. Furthermore this is potentially an opportunity for EU theorists to give credit to their theory.


It also seems like a cop out to say it's in Scott's book but it's not Scott's theory.
At this point I don’t really care but I think I should make it clear that I could not find this theory in Dr Scott’s book. He may very well claim in some YouTube video or at a conference somewhere that he believes in the Grand Canyon theory but I could not find it in his book. This is what I did find,

Thornhill and other like-minded investigators also theorize that the electric discharge machining produced a monstrous scar across the face of Mars…
No mention of the Grand Canyon but perhaps you think that this is close enough.


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.
They are also formed in blocks of acrylic.

This process is different than lightning making these patterns in stone but it is interesting. Perhaps there is an example of Lichtenberg patterns created by lightning found in stone yet to be found.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Consider a large cloud of molecular gas and dust about to collapse under gravity to form a star…results from the collapse of this cloud will rotate in the same direction, only much, much faster.
The problem I have with this explanation is where did the cloud of interstellar gas get its collective momentum from? Are we to assume that interstellar gas/dust clouds move in unison?
I would think that these motions would be random unless they are reacting to a force. Could the random motions of so many particles in such a vast area create the observed angular motions in our solar system? Perhaps a force was originally acting on these interstellar clouds yet what would this force be?



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Devino
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Consider a large cloud of molecular gas and dust about to collapse under gravity to form a star…results from the collapse of this cloud will rotate in the same direction, only much, much faster.
The problem I have with this explanation is where did the cloud of interstellar gas get its collective momentum from? Are we to assume that interstellar gas/dust clouds move in unison?
I would think that these motions would be random unless they are reacting to a force. Could the random motions of so many particles in such a vast area create the observed angular motions in our solar system? Perhaps a force was originally acting on these interstellar clouds yet what would this force be?



At the time of formation every such body gets some initial momentum remember nothing in the galaxy is standing still. Distribution of such momentum is absolutely random. So theres not one force acting on all stars for example.As the gas contracts we have two energies, Kinetic Energy (KE = mv^2/2) due to velocity of the particles. The other one is the gravitational Potential Energy (PE = Gm1 m2 /distance) exerting the pull. Averaged over one orbital period the total energy is conserved E = KE + PE. So the energy to create the spin is conservation of energy as the cloud contracts its spped will increase because we can't just lose this energy it has to show up in angular momentum..



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Kinetic Energy (KE = mv^2/2) due to velocity of the particles.
This is a scalar so we assume random direction as I don’t think these motions have been measured.

gravitational Potential Energy (PE = Gm1 m2 /distance) exerting the pull.
Again no direction unless you want to assume all particles are gravitating towards the middle which seems counter intuitive. What I would expect is random clustering that would cause random spin and random orbital motions (including parabolic/hyperbolic) throwing stuff around in all directions, some to escape velocities.


Averaged over one orbital period
How does this happen with a myriad particles moving in random directions? What is the result of the conservation of random momentum from these particles?


So the energy to create the spin is conservation of energy
Random begets random. I feel that we are making a leap going from random to a unified motion. All the bodies in the solar system, with the exception of axial inversions of two planets and orbits of a few small moons, have spin and orbital motions in the same direction and are in the plane of the ecliptic. How do we go from random to ordered angular motions and how do these motions appear on a narrow 6° plane? This seems to imply another force that has yet to be identified.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


A change in the speed of light as we measure it, in seconds, would translate into a major change over a million years, or 12 million years.

Light travels as a wave, and waves travel through a medium. We don't know what effects deep space might have on the medium that carries light waves, and the medium is probably a plasma structure. We do know that changes to the medium that carries a wave, changes the speed of the wave.

We see changes in the speed of planetary orbit speeds, but the orbit time around the sun remains, on average, fairly constant. What we don't know is whether these changes in speed are the planet actually changing speed, or the speed of light we use to measure the speed of the planets, is changing as it passes through a varying plasma medium in space.

edit on 13-3-2014 by poet1b because: clarify two points.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Devino
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Kinetic Energy (KE = mv^2/2) due to velocity of the particles.
This is a scalar so we assume random direction as I don’t think these motions have been measured.

gravitational Potential Energy (PE = Gm1 m2 /distance) exerting the pull.
Again no direction unless you want to assume all particles are gravitating towards the middle which seems counter intuitive. What I would expect is random clustering that would cause random spin and random orbital motions (including parabolic/hyperbolic) throwing stuff around in all directions, some to escape velocities.


Averaged over one orbital period
How does this happen with a myriad particles moving in random directions? What is the result of the conservation of random momentum from these particles?


So the energy to create the spin is conservation of energy
Random begets random. I feel that we are making a leap going from random to a unified motion. All the bodies in the solar system, with the exception of axial inversions of two planets and orbits of a few small moons, have spin and orbital motions in the same direction and are in the plane of the ecliptic. How do we go from random to ordered angular motions and how do these motions appear on a narrow 6° plane? This seems to imply another force that has yet to be identified.



Your forgetting suns are created in much larger areas of gas called nebulae.Suns are created on localized disturbances of a gas in a much larger cloud that takes up parsecs.Suns form in a gravitational collapse same with planets. Basically an object just keeps accumulating mass from its surroundings until eventually it gets big enough for fusion to take place. Jupiter was going to be a sun just didnt make it though if we were a binary star system we probably wouldnt be here.


Now as for how things spin in the same direction depends on gravity because accretion disks form around the newly formed sun. gas cannot fall directly into the sun, but instead spirals around it much like water spirals down a bathtub drain.This is why everything seems so ordered all do to conservation of energy. At the beginning its very random by the end its not.
edit on 3/13/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 



It appears that you have a rather typical reaction like so many that view alternative theories but it’s difficult to read through the sarcasm, it would help if you left it out. I don’t much care for it.

I am taking the road of devil’s advocate here in order to hopefully understand more about this subject. I never said I agree with the EU model now have I? I do find it entertaining though.


Well put, I also find EU entertaining. What I find interesting is that as we continue to explore space, we are finding plasma everywhere. I suspect that we will find that plasma has a great deal more to do with the nature of space than we realize.

Just as there are different types of solids, liquids, and gases, there are probably different types of plasma. I think electricity is one kind of plasma. I don't think electricity creates gravity, but I suspect gravity is the affect of some type of plasma.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
So the problem of rotation is still conservation of angular momentum

Lets start with a seed, so we have a local density of cool gas, how it got there? Lets say a rogue planet or just a blob of gas randomly forms from cool gas. Around it is a cloud of gas that is hotter, both the cool gas and the hot gas have random motion. The cold gas is dense and so achieves something of a brownian motion or exhibits ideal gas behaviour, this helps it stay in one place and also continue to cool and collapse.

Now around this region of density is gas moving in random directions, the density is low so the path of each particle is roughly straight and is only affected by the occasional collision and gravity. What you expect to happen is that the particles moving straight towards or straight away from the dense region will basically fall in eventually and add to the density of the middle as it slows down by smashing into the higher density part.

OK now consider the particles that are not moving straight in or out but anything in between. What you expect is actually that as gravity acts on the particle, bending the trajectory inwards, as particle orbits (assumed none stable for now) by conservation of angular momentum, as the particle moves closer, the vector perpendicular to the pull of gravity increases. It is exactly the same as an ice skater.

So what you would tend to get is a rotating ball of fluff in a cloud moving in random directions.

Now, ANY imbalance in the randomness will cause the system to adhere to that imbalance.

It would be a reasonable suggestion that the universe might start out with galaxies that are basically stars orbit around the centre of mass in a big cloud, such as we see in elliptical galaxies. Early Galaxies should not show the formation of spirals, and this is actually what we see in deep fields.

Now the important factor here is that unless galaxy formation is perfectly uniform throughout the universe, you actually expect objects to again some bias in their orbital angular momentum.

Imagine you have two galaxies, they formed and both are stationary, they will be attracted to each other and collide. not very exciting. Now lets add a galaxy that forms near those two, but is closer to one of them. What you expect is that the 3rd galaxy will be attracted to the centre of mass, NOT the closer galaxy.

As soon as this happens you will produce a net angular momentum via gravitational transference. You end up with three galaxies that end up either bound in a rotating system, or one large galaxy with the residual rotation.

What N-body simulations show is that spiral galaxy formation appears to be related to a process similar to that described above.

Now for planetary disks and stars, well even if we assume that nothing in the early universe spins all that much, as the universe ages we do expect i think the system to being spinning. Now any residual motion left over will impart on it the same spinning motion into the next stars that form. So this appears to me to be a natural way to form rotating planetary systems.

This might on the first glance appear like a violation of energy or entropy but it is the conservation of energy and angular momentum that forms these systems.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by Devino
 



It appears that you have a rather typical reaction like so many that view alternative theories but it’s difficult to read through the sarcasm, it would help if you left it out. I don’t much care for it.

I am taking the road of devil’s advocate here in order to hopefully understand more about this subject. I never said I agree with the EU model now have I? I do find it entertaining though.


Well put, I also find EU entertaining. What I find interesting is that as we continue to explore space, we are finding plasma everywhere. I suspect that we will find that plasma has a great deal more to do with the nature of space than we realize.

Just as there are different types of solids, liquids, and gases, there are probably different types of plasma. I think electricity is one kind of plasma. I don't think electricity creates gravity, but I suspect gravity is the affect of some type of plasma.



Electricity is not a plasma electricity is a general term for the variety of phenomena resulting from the presence and flow of electric charge. Together with magnetism, it constitutes the fundamental interaction known as electromagnetism.Electric charge is a property of certain subatomic particles for example electrons and protons which interacts with electromagnetic fields and causes attractive and repulsive forces between them. the two types of charges are positive and negative like-charged objects repel and opposite-charges attract one another. The magnitude of the force of attraction or repulsion is given by Coulomb's law.

Plasma typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds, The ionized gas contains proton ions and electrons ions in about equal numbers so that the resultant space charge is very small. meaning this is a state of matter. Or in other words when you made the statement that you think electricity is a form of plasma its exactly the same as you saying you think electricity is a form of water. In other words it makes absolutely no sense at all.

As far as gravity being a plasma i wont even discuss it because i know i wont be able to contain the sarcasm.
edit on 3/13/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
55
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join