Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

KrzYma
There is no nothing, and after we can do something adding this to nothing, I say, there is everything, we need to learn how to use it.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Could you re-phrase that for us?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

You're confused. Dark energy has nothing to do with what you've been talking about, and this is the second time you've mentioned it totally out of context, which makes it seem like you really have no idea what you're talking about.

and you should follow my posts more carefully

this was an answer to jaffo to answer his question to my other post

Time to throw the old theories away for new ones ! I'm afraid the MS scientists will "discover" some new kind of boundary-energy or invisible boundary-matter spooky thing that fits the old model and explain the new observations...

witch was my answer to the OP


But yes, I will always repeat, there is no dark matter

there is no dark matter
there is no dark matter
there is no dark matter
there is no dark matter

till I stop hearing that there is one, or dark matter comes to my living room so we can talk

It seems to me like the example in the video that Uranus was sort of a "dark matter" like prediction, and Uranus was eventually found, should reduce your skepticism of dark matter, yet you seem to be posting this video as if it should make us skeptical about dark matter. It seems illogical to me, or are you denying the existence of Uranus?

sarcasm in this video, I hear it out, you don't ?

Maybe you don't understand the dark matter idea, dark matter is not a point somewhere in a distance Galaxy, it shall be everywhere, according to this model 23% in the Universe is dark matter and we, all other stuff that you can see and touch just some 4%
"It is right now going trough us and all other matter..... "

How big in percentage is the Uranus to the Solar System ???
Please rethink your Uranus/dark matter argument.

Scientist say, we can never see and probably never measure it... sure not, because it is just a concept, a concept you can throw out with a better theory.

I have worked for 4 years on the experiment I am a collaborator on, which is a dark matter detector. Before this I did a 4 year PhD on a neutrino physics experiment. I am more experimental than theoretical, though have to understand the theory as a matter of principle.

We typically split it into Baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter, Baryonic dark matter is regular stuff like, brown dwarfs black holes sub dwarfs, neutron stars, rogue planets, dust... etc...

Non-baryonic dark matter is the stuff that appears not to fit into the above category.

The amount of baryonic dark matter is already folded into the 20 something % estimate. It makes up a very small fraction.

The issue appears that if we do look at the matter we can see, there is an astounding amount just missing, that if all that is dust, we should expect to see it, if it is all planets etc, we are saying that despite that we observe stars are containing the vast fraction of all matter in each solar system... that that notion is incorrect and that planets make up a larger mass than their central star.

These are the kind of problems faced. No one denys the existence of electromagnetic phenomena from stars, some of the magnetic fields they can produce are pretty spectacular. but the 1/r^2 rule is a very cruel mistress. The amount of energy received by a 1m^2 surface at the distance jupiter is at from the sun, is less than the amount of radiation emanating from Jupiter itself. That is the kind of things we think about when people talk about energy flows through plasma for a electric universe model etc, and it just doesn't make sense.

ErosA433
I have worked for 4 years on the experiment I am a collaborator on, which is a dark matter detector. Before this I did a 4 year PhD on a neutrino physics experiment. I am more experimental than theoretical, though have to understand the theory as a matter of principle.

We typically split it into Baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter, Baryonic dark matter is regular stuff like, brown dwarfs black holes sub dwarfs, neutron stars, rogue planets, dust... etc...

Non-baryonic dark matter is the stuff that appears not to fit into the above category.

The amount of baryonic dark matter is already folded into the 20 something % estimate. It makes up a very small fraction.

The issue appears that if we do look at the matter we can see, there is an astounding amount just missing, that if all that is dust, we should expect to see it, if it is all planets etc, we are saying that despite that we observe stars are containing the vast fraction of all matter in each solar system... that that notion is incorrect and that planets make up a larger mass than their central star.

These are the kind of problems faced. No one denys the existence of electromagnetic phenomena from stars, some of the magnetic fields they can produce are pretty spectacular. but the 1/r^2 rule is a very cruel mistress. The amount of energy received by a 1m^2 surface at the distance jupiter is at from the sun, is less than the amount of radiation emanating from Jupiter itself. That is the kind of things we think about when people talk about energy flows through plasma for a electric universe model etc, and it just doesn't make sense.

Interesting !

So how dark matter detector works theoretically ?
I have heard, a big tank of water in which small light flashes should be detected. After eliminating all other causes of the flashes, all that is left is the other cause, that could be dark matter.
But how do you eliminate all other causes for sure ???

And as it comes to water,
here something more close to us and how electricity is affecting everything.
According to what he is talking, we can even live without food or water for years...


very interesting

reply to post by KrzYma


Gerald Pollack will be speaking next month at EU Conference 2014.

The electric sun model makes sense to me. Just the way it is getting powered might be a process that is hard to see. the mediums being used for continuity for example, has me wondering about the neutral medium in interstellar space. Maybe it is conducting. I find these new theories and even speculation very interesting.

In order to search for dark matter, directly detecting it is pretty difficult, hence why we have not managed it so far.

So the theory of what dark matter is is fairly open, though all evidence points to a particle known as or nicknamed a WIMP

Weakly
Interacting
Massive
Particle

It is a particle who's name and properties are fairly closely matched. The theoretical standpoint for the existence of this particle is that it would be the lightest supersymmetric particle... which is theoretically stable. While the subject of if supersymmetry exists or not is a matter of opinion and although media-science people would have you think the discovery of the higgs means supersymmetry doesn't work, it is not actually the case. It simply pushes supersymmetry beyond the discovery potential for the LHC and pushes the centre of mass interactions for the WIMP a little higher.

SOOOOO the speculative issue is that, this particle does;t actually have to be coupled to normal matter at all. It would be a great big shame if there is no coupling, it would in effect mean that it might be impossible to detect directly at all. This is a possibility. But since this is quite bleak, and given that all forces are found to interact, abet the coupling of gravity to the rest appears to be at best extremely small bordering on zero at our energy scale. (It doesn't mean that higher up it doesn't become more dominant but that isn't the subject of this post)

So, if they are to interact, they do so via the weak interaction only, which is what is stipulated by the standard model and supersymmetry.

So what do we look for? The most basic interaction that a particle can undergo is a weak billiard ball style scattering. All that happens is that the WIMP smacks into an atom.

We simply attempt to detect that interaction.

The water tank you are referring to is either Super Kamiokande or SNO, which are both neutrino detectors, SNO is however now being recommissioned into a double beta decay experiment. Super K is still operating as a neutrino beam far detector.

This is quite a challenge because you have to know that the interaction you observed is not something like... a neutron scatter. So we have to be able to use a detector material that is of extremely high purity. Make our detectors extremely clean, make surfaces that are smooth and do not pour radioactive contaminants everywhere.

There are many different technologies trying to do this, there is not a single way to do it, so physicists are trying all methods. I should perhaps do a new thread about the subject of Dark Matter direct searches.

I've always been intrested in electric universe theory. Big fan of 3min news on suspicious observers YouTube channel.


I just have a couple questions someone who knows more could answer.

Does electric universe theory conflict
With excepted other aspects of the standard model. Like with intelligent design. It's proponents latch onto an unknown in evolution and pretend it proves there theory. Ignoring the implications for cloning , gene sequencing, and the rest of
The genetic advances medicine has made.which wouldn't work
If evolution wasn't true.

The second thing is. How do dark matter and energy play into electric universe theory? Does EU fix the problems with dark matter and the expAntion of the universe?

reply to post by ArtemisE


I have ready many claims about how the EU model fixes the dark matter and dark energy problem. Though other than simply words out of mouth saying that, i have never seen any kind of model to prove that to be the case, or any mathematical treatment of the model that can be applied to any kind of simulations or experiments.

Lots of people talking, and not many putting pens on papers

reply to post by KrzYma


Homie just meant Uranus was found from its gravitational pull, just like dark matter was. It's a fair analogy and at least on that quote made perfect sense. He wasn't saying Uranus contained dark matter.

reply to post by ErosA433


thanks for the explanation

obviously, I deny it's existence at all and trustfully wait for other explanation.
I think counter-space is responsible for what we observe.

But maybe it is all the same and we just use different names for it.

However, in truth, I'm sure we have to stop explosive physics and investigate more on implosions.

reply to post by ErosA433


That IMHO is the way for an alternate theory to take hold. Fix the problems with dark matter and energy.

ArtemisE
reply to post by KrzYma

 

Homie just meant Uranus was found from its gravitational pull, just like dark matter was. It's a fair analogy and at least on that quote made perfect sense. He wasn't saying Uranus contained dark matter.

Yes, I wasn't saying it either.
What I mean is that Uranus was hard to find, even if predicted, because it's so "small" in the Solar System.
Dark Matter however shall be everywhere. Even more of it than normal matter.

It is hard to find a ball on the big yard, but practically "swimming" in something is kind different.

reply to post by ArtemisE


I agree, it is. But that is the point here to... that none of these alternatives are really fitting the observations, and no amount of "wanting" can help that other than actually doing the work on the models and presenting something that is tangible. That has not happened yet.

And Dark matter models... WIMPs are only one such model, but that is historical now, since the other models where examined by many people and their predictions tested, the WIMP model appears to be the current best.


It is like, you have a car, and everything works, you know every single part of it inside out.

You decide one day that you are not happy with the car, and you think that rather than making an engine sound, you want it to sound like a cat purring. To do this you replace most of the car parts. You look at your finished work and realize that you now don't have a car that works, but you do have something that purrs.

That is what it is often like listening to the rantings of the Alternative. Because the attitude is 'Tare it all down and burn it and start again..." Without even an inkling of what they want to do to address all of the system they are tarring down.

ArtemisE
The second thing is. How do dark matter and energy play into electric universe theory? Does EU fix the problems with dark matter and the expAntion of the universe?

On the Thunderbolts website there is an article "Still Chasing the Ghosts of ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy.’"

I hear this article saying that dark matter was theorized because observed motions of galaxies in clusters created problems for astronomers because the gravitational model of the universe requires more mass than was observed to account for those motions. But if gravity is not what organizes galaxies and gives birth to their constituent stars then there is no need for dark matter.

And dark energy was theorized as a cosmic anti-gravity of sorts to account for anomalously low brightness of Type 1a supernovae in high-redshift galaxies. But there are alternative interpretations of redshift and disagreement on attributes of Type 1a supernovae.

suuup,

I hope this means that we, as a people, will begin to build even more monuments to the sun. Remember- although the sun radiates its life-giving warmth and light, it will smite the eyeballs out of your sockets if you look at it for too long.

So Thats how Aliens travel in space!
They use high energy magnetic drives...

and great post.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Agreed. Don't know how this would effect EU. But what it dark matter was just the "gravitational" pull of alternate/parallel dimensions. If either other dimensions or parrellel universes are "close" to there counterparts. Could that account for the missing matter?

ErosA433
There are many different technologies trying to do this, there is not a single way to do it, so physicists are trying all methods. I should perhaps do a new thread about the subject of Dark Matter direct searches.

Thanks for making the thread...just started reading it: www.abovetopsecret.com...

ArtemisE
Homie just meant Uranus was found from its gravitational pull, just like dark matter was. It's a fair analogy and at least on that quote made perfect sense. He wasn't saying Uranus contained dark matter.

Actually I was referring to the video that KrzYma posted, which to paraphrase said that observations suggested that dark matter existed where Uranus was found, and that Uranus was subsequently found, but they didn't believe that more dark matter would be found just because observations predicted it.

Yes I was saying that Uranus was one form of dark matter before it was observed which is actually what the video said so I agreed with that part, which as Eros explained is the baryonic type. There is estimated to be quite a bit of baryonic dark matter, but not nearly enough to account for observations, which is why the "missing" non-baryonic dark matter has been postulated, with the acronym Eros mentioned of "WIMPS". There is also an acronym for the baryonic type of dark matter objects called "MACHO" which is "MAssive Conpact Halo Objects", and undiscovered objects along the lines of Uranus etc would fall into this category.

So I still find the irony in the video quite remarkable, that it cites an example of how observations have led to the discovery of dark matter in the past, but they don't have confidence that the same methods that worked before will work again, namely observation, deduction, search...find, where we have already found Uranus but are still looking for non-baryonic dark matter as Eros explained.

ArtemisE
Agreed. Don't know how this would effect EU. But what it dark matter was just the "gravitational" pull of alternate/parallel dimensions. If either other dimensions or parrellel universes are "close" to there counterparts. Could that account for the missing matter?

Well let's examine that. First you'd have to postulate what you think the alternate dimensions (or universes) are and how they can interact with ours, and based on your models you could try to devise some tests or observations that would refute or confirm the model. So I already like this idea better than EU on the basis it doesn't contradict observation (because I don't know enough about the model to say whether it does or doesn't). I'm basically open to any rational idea that will explain observations.

To see how the electric sun model is directly contradicted by observation, read this short excerpt:

www.tim-thompson.com...

The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That's what the third "major property" says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that.

So electric sun model says sun has net electric charge, and observations that both electrons and protons are repelled by the sun make us wonder why the net electric charge wouldn't attract one or the other, which would be needed for the electric sun model to be true.

alienreality
The electric sun model makes sense to me. Just the way it is getting powered might be a process that is hard to see.

If it makes sense please explain it to me. If the sun has a net electric charge, why are positive and negative charges both flowing away from the sun? Does this really make sense to you? The electric charge is postulated at some HUGE number of volts depending on who you listen to. If you ever looked at Tesla's experiments with high voltages, you might have noticed the current flows were not hard to observe.

So no I don't think it's hard to observe, we DO observe positive and negative charge flow away from the sun, and this is inconsistent with the electric sun model. So, the model is contradicted by observation. At least with the "alternate dimension" model I can ask what the heck is that, where is the model and how can we test it? But the electric sun model obviously doesn't match observation, and that's just the tip of the iceburg on how it doesn't match, read the rest of the link for more.

Thanks, If you think I might have missed something or explained something badly/wrong, do just point it out on the thread... its was a long day today and i wrote it feeling fairly tired.

I didn't talk about MACHOs at all, but theoretically it is similar to that of the WIMP models with the galactic halo being occupied with massive objects. I like to think of it as a more lumpy model, plus, these objects would be baryonic and basically large black holes, neutron stars etc.

The model is still being tested though all bets are looking like the quantity of MACHO classified objects in the halo is also not high enough.

That said the searches are still ongoing