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: 46
55
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


How does the EM field exist where there is no radiation? If you know the answer, tell me. If you dont, tell me you dont know. Stop beating around the bush.


look, radiation is the potential change in the EM field.
EM field exists even if there is no change.
Distance between two charged particles is the potential, movement of those charges creates the "wave" in EM field

in analogy, you can see the wave that propagates in water but if there is no wind the are no waves in water that still is there.




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
I never made any measurements to the Sun so I can only tell what other people are saying.

What I have heard is that the Sun is a perfect sphere. This is strange if gravitation is on work, remembering that the rotation is different on the equator and the polls of the Sun.
It's not a perfect sphere, rather the shape is about what expected for the mass and rotation period:

NASA Spacecraft Finds the Sun is Not a Perfect Sphere

“When we subtract the effect of the magnetic network, we get a ‘true’ measure of the sun’s shape resulting from gravitational forces and motions alone,” says Hudson. “The corrected oblateness of the non-magnetic sun is 8.01 +- 0.14 milli arcseconds, near the value expected from simple rotation.”



All I have seen myself is that electricity is the driving force to all.
( of course not this from the wall socket we use
)
So you've felt electricity pulling you back to the ground when you try to jump up? You can even conduct experiments at home in a chamber where you isolate external electric and electromagnetic fields, and find a ball still rolls down an incline inside the chamber. How is this electric?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



The “cantaloupe ridges” are magnetic in nature. They outline giant, bubbling convection cells on the surface of the sun called “supergranules.” Supergranules are like bubbles in a pot of boiling water amplified to the scale of a star; on the sun they measure some 30,000 km across (twice as wide as Earth) and are made of seething hot magnetized plasma. Magnetic fields at the center of these bubbles are swept out to the edge where they form ridges of magnetism. The ridges are most prominent during years around Solar Max when the sun’s inner dynamo “revs up” to produce the strongest magnetic fields. Solar physicists have known about supergranules and the magnetic network they produce for many years, but only now has RHESSI revealed their unexpected connection to the sun’s oblateness. “When we subtract the effect of the magnetic network, we get a ‘true’ measure of the sun’s shape resulting from gravitational forces and motions alone,” says Hudson. “The corrected oblateness of the non-magnetic sun is 8.01 +- 0.14 milli arcseconds, near the value expected from simple rotation.”


looks like fixing values or ignoring them to make it right, right ?
"If we ignore all the tectonic movement on Earth, that causes mountains to rise, Earth is a flat surface on a quizzed sphere"



So you've felt electricity pulling you back to the ground when you try to jump up? You can even conduct experiments at home in a chamber where you isolate external electric and electromagnetic fields, and find a ball still rolls down an incline inside the chamber. How is this electric?


did I ever said there is no gravity ??

even if NOBODY knows how gravity works, I never denied it !

edit on 14-5-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
looks like fixing values or ignoring them to make it right, right ?
My take from that article is the sun is even less round if they don't make those corrections. I suggest reading the whole thing more carefully.


did I ever said there is no gravity ??

even if NOBODY knows how gravity works, I never denied it !
You said this and didn't exclude gravity:


originally posted by: KrzYma
Everything is driven by electric potential difference, always was and ever will be !!!!


Plus you posted it in an electric universe thread and Wal Thornhill thinks gravity is electric even though there's no evidence for this. So am I wrong to ask you if you also think gravity is electric? And if so based on what evidence?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
There is not enough gamma radiation for fusion and the standard model keeps this inside the Sun as explanation.
If the fusion is not in the core but in the Photosphere things look different.


The standard solar model which bases the driving force of the sun's energy as nuclear fusion, allows us to connect together the mass of the sun, the production of energy through fusion, to the number of neutrinos that emanate from it.

These measurements have been made, and we are still looking at the sun and it matches the models. The standard solar model (not the standard model of particle physics). Gamma radiation produced in the core is, it appears from the model and observations of the sun and helioseismology not a problem at all. The flow of material around, plasma and otherwise, is driven by thermal means, classical fluid dynamics can be applied to it and checked with helioseismology and again we appear to understand what we observe. Plasma no doubt exists, and plays a role more in the atmosphere, but the driving force and the input of energy into the system is gravitational contraction, and the outward pressure holding the structure of the sun up from fusion.

The point is that yes the sun is a complex object, but we don't need to invent something to figure out how it is working. We once thought that the sun was releasing energy purely a gravitational contraction, if you take your pen and paper and write down the gravitational potential for the system and assume the sun is getting smaller and smaller and figure out the energy output... the sun would last a few thousand years. So interesting, lets figure out if its a chemical reaction.

We look at the sun and it is made from Hydrogen and Helium. You cannot perform a chemical reaction to produce energy from those constituents.

Would fusion of Hydrogen into Helium, via the pep hep, pp, ppI, ppII and ppIII chains, The main question is if there is another process involved, the CNO cycle. Measurements of the different neutrinos from these processes do appear to say that we mostly have a PP chain based process, but both the CNO cycle and PP chain can be occurring. Experiments are being built to attempt to measure this.

So electricity? please tell me from this theory, that seems to have no substance to it other than to say "Oh mainstream is wrong, gravity doesnt exist" then go on to claim that the theory solves everything... so please explain for me how we generate power, from electricity from nothing at all, without inducing a circular argument and perpetual motion machine.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I knew it will come, just because I let the unknown force out of my statement.

I don't know how gravity works, do you ?

and yes, I've posted on the electric sun thread, why not? should I make a new thread for every single though I have?

I can not synthesize all to one point ignoring all other aspects of reality, taking them apart even if they are related just for the math to work.

OK, lets us try something.
you ask me a question about something that bothers you in the standard model and I see if I can follow



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I knew it will come, just because I let the unknown force out of my statement.

I don't know how gravity works, do you ?
It depends on what you mean by "how it works". I understand the classical gravity model and have some clue about how it works in the relativity model in which mass/energy is said to "warp space-time", and it seems like observations support this model.

Now this model doesn't explain why mass/energy warps space-time, and no I don't understand that. As far as I can tell, nobody does, though some string theorists may claim to have answers in string theory...but they will need to have some evidence to convince the scientific community which I don't believe they're produced yet. Scientists also talk about a "theory of quantum gravity" which I suppose could be along the lines of string theory or maybe not, and without such a model, we admit the quantum behavior of gravity is not understood.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433



The standard solar model which bases the driving force of the sun's energy as nuclear fusion, allows us to connect together the mass of the sun, the production of energy through fusion, to the number of neutrinos that emanate from it.


did anybody ever put the Sun on a weighing scale?
where those numbers are coming from?
calculations, right?
calculations of what? models of reality?
did anyone ever measured the speed of light far far away from Earth ?

define energy more exactly please.
why do you think energy conservation law is true ?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I knew it will come, just because I let the unknown force out of my statement.

I don't know how gravity works, do you ?
It depends on what you mean by "how it works". I understand the classical gravity model and have some clue about how it works in the relativity model in which mass/energy is said to "warp space-time", and it seems like observations support this model.

Now this model doesn't explain why mass/energy warps space-time, and no I don't understand that. As far as I can tell, nobody does, though some string theorists may claim to have answers in string theory...but they will need to have some evidence to convince the scientific community which I don't believe they're produced yet. Scientists also talk about a "theory of quantum gravity" which I suppose could be along the lines of string theory or maybe not, and without such a model, we admit the quantum behavior of gravity is not understood.


I think I see it more or less the same way. Not sure if you want to deny it, but...
String theory is just another theory even more absurd that the old ones.
But the fundamental though is cool in some point of view.
"this is so small we can never see or measure it"
this is a free card to Disneyland $$$

BTW: "how it woks" was not a question how it acts on mass what we all know.

Space-time has one big problem in my eyes. If mass causes the space to contract ( wrap or whatever you call it )
what causes the mass? If space contraction is the mass what causes the contraction ?
It can not be that one is the cause of the other where the other is the cause of the first

this is why Higgs field was born, unfortunately this field denies the no eather Universe, a field has physical properties by se, at least a distance from one arbitrary point to another which leads to a reference point for any movement.
relativity is dead at this point



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Some pretty poor offerings there.


originally posted by: KrzYma
did anybody ever put the Sun on a weighing scale?

No, nor do we need to. Mass and weight are different things. We observe many objects locked in orbit around the sun and objects that orbit around those objects, we can solve many simultaneous equations and be able to find out the total mass of objects in the system. We are able to launch objects, and by knowing their mass, predict very accurate trajectories and get them to go exactly where we want them too. The Cassini Mission as an example flew around the sun (passing venus twice) a few times and then out for a fly by of Jupiter before heading to Saturn. They had the space craft fly between the F and G rings of saturn. We kinda need to understand the mass of all objects on the system to do this.

Classical gravitation works totally fine to do this.



where those numbers are coming from?
calculations, right?
calculations of what? models of reality?


Calculations based upon observations, upon which models are formed. Not sure there is a point to this other than a rather to attempt a "Oh well its just a model right?" response after. Models of reality that work pretty damn well thanks, and models that some people want to deny work, or want to add things too that are simply not required, or are so weak and play a 30th order deviation to what we see. You might argue that the 30th order deviation IS important, but if that is the case then you need to understand that corrections that are of that tiny order need not only good evidence, but also good measurements and precise determination... But what you are kind of saying is that, you wouldn't believe measurements in the first place...

"We need to know what is happening"
"So i have a model here that shows why we see what we see, we can apply it to thousands of objects we see and it works for each and every single one of them to a high degree of accuracy"
"Oh that model is wrong because you dont really KNOW now do you?"

It is a logical dead end in which you invite science to walk blindly into a dark place so far outside that of logical thought that we might as well be debating magic.



did anyone ever measured the speed of light far far away from Earth ?


Well, we have measured it within a ring traced by the earth around the sun. It doesn't appear to change in that region. We have also pinged spacecraft in orbit around other planets in our solar system, and determined that those measurements are the same. So thats a pretty nice sphere of measurement.

Now how does this related to the questions i asked? because i was talking about the sun... Iv just now said that our determination of the speed of light appears correct within a volume many orders of magnitude larger than the sun... so? what exactly is the relevance here when we talk about a so called electric sun?

Tell me what parts of my posts you don't like or understand, because by the evidence we see, the sun is driven completely energetically by nuclear fusion.




define energy more exactly please.


Energy is a property of a particle or field that can be used to do work mechanically, chemically or atomically. It is mediated by fundamental interactions, such as the transfer of photons. It's mechanical property is for example movement through space. Or initiating vibration (also a movement)
Definition of energy is wide ranging, and depends largely upon the system you are talking about, and if it is at micro or macroscopic scales. The systems behave similarly, but the language used is different. Example being that thermal energy is the vibration of atoms within a structure and the slow release (or none release) of thermal IR radiation.

Once again, the energy garnered from nuclear fusion is the release of binding energy, the energy contained within the nucleus, or in the case of our sin, the energy that is mediated between quarks by the nuclear strong force (gluon mediated). This energy is released as nucleons fuse and lower their excitation to the ground state. Everything in a system attempts this. The new nucleus de-excites and energy escapes the nucleus isotropically via the emission of a positron and a neutrino. (for a straight proton-proton collision as an example)



why do you think energy conservation law is true ?


Because it is absolutely what we observe in all processes and interactions both on large scales, and also small scales. the realm of the human experience is the experience of conservation of energy.
edit on 14-5-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
this is why Higgs field was born, unfortunately this field denies the no eather Universe, a field has physical properties by se, at least a distance from one arbitrary point to another which leads to a reference point for any movement.
relativity is dead at this point
I wouldn't say relativity is dead, because the standard model including the Higgs works with special relativity as far as I know.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Ok so simply, you dont know the answer for what im asking. The only reason I started asking is in the case modern physics had some idea as to the truth of an answer to my question. If you are expressing they do not, that is ok, I will stop asking it for now.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Do hydrogen and helium atoms exist stabley within the sun for long periods of times, or is it a big constant soup of fusion, and atoms cant even form? So it is just the nuclei, (and how do electrons play in) being rubbed up against one another at all times with different momentums and velocities, and a nearly unfathomable number of these quanta, protons, nuetrons, electrons are just being smushed together but contained in an area, and the result of this is a massive amount of radiation always leaving?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
this is why Higgs field was born, unfortunately this field denies the no eather Universe, a field has physical properties by se, at least a distance from one arbitrary point to another which leads to a reference point for any movement.
relativity is dead at this point
I wouldn't say relativity is dead, because the standard model including the Higgs works with special relativity as far as I know.


Yes relativity is fine hes also not truly understanding the Higgs field either,Some physicists suppose that the Higgs Field permeates all space. This is pure speculation because the Higgs Boson has always been detected near particles. This means that we do not know if the Higgs Field permeates all space, or if it is locally created by these particles.For example magnetic fields dont exist everywhere there created through particle interactions and are local. See theirs a relationship between fields and particles.Fields are made up of oscillating quantum particles. Now to say we dont understand what causes gravity is not entirely true. We found something predicted by Einstine that tells us alot about gravity. We have discovered indeed gravity waves do exist just recently. This means quantum gravitons do exist so now we have a particle and we can detect the field it creates you know this as gravity.What were trying to figure out is the connection between mass and gravity or more why does higs boson produce gravitons?
edit on 5/14/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


The chains are more complicated than smacking 4 protons together at the same time.

Fusion would only take place in the core, here the pressure from the head column of material above it is the highest, and the temperature of the soup with it. Electrons would exist in this soup but the soup exists as a highly excited and energetic plasma. Hydrogen/protons are stable as far as we have been able to measure. We know that the half life is at least 10^33 years, so... pretty much stable. Helium 4 is also stable as far as we can detect. Other stuff is not stable however. OK so lets start with the PP I chain Energy out is in kinetic energy and any other source i point out

PPI Produces Deuterium (stable)
p+p -> 2H + (e+) + v (99.8 % of the start of the process of producing deuterium)

The energy out you get from this is from the positron, which will annihilate with an electron and release two 511 keV gammas and the neutrino (which escapes from the system typically departing little/no energy by comparison to the positron)

2H+p -> 3He + y (y is a gamma)

Energy out is the gamma, the Helium 3 is stable here also.

end of the PPI chain (85% of the 2He gets used in this process)

3He + 3He -> 4He +2p

The energy here comes out in kinetic energy of the two protons.

15% of the 3He is used via the PPII chain

3He + 3He -> 7Be + y (energy out is in the gamma) 7Be is not stable and will capture an electron and transmute as follows

7Be + e- -> 7Li + v

The PPII chain ends with

7Li + p -> 8Be -> 4He + 4He energy out is in kinetic energy

There are two other chains that occur at very low levels PPIII, pep and hep.


There are other processes that occur, BUT what is pointed out is what ends in a stable state that will undergo little to no net positive energy process.

Example, being if by chance you produce 3H, that is rare but Tritium isn't stable, and will decay via beta emission. Make 4H and it will spontaniously decay ejecting a neutron.
At the core of the sun, there is not enough heat and pressure to fuse helium, so the process basically stops at helium. If the core is none convective, basically the core will slowly become polluted with helium and the fusion process will slow, causing contraction and heating.

How does this energy get out? The gammas rattle around interacting with the electrons in the plasma, the mean free path of the gammas in the core is quite small, and such it takes about 100,000 years for the energy to make it to the photosphere. Once it reaches the photosphere, the gammas are no longer the same gammas as they started out. The energy has been shared and re-emitted many times along the way.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Yes relativity is fine hes also not truly understanding the Higgs field either,Some physicists suppose that the Higgs Field permeates all space. This is pure speculation because the Higgs Boson has always been detected near particles. This means that we do not know if the Higgs Field permeates all space, or if it is locally created by these particles.For example magnetic fields dont exist everywhere there created through particle interactions and are local. See theirs a relationship between fields and particles.Fields are made up of oscillating quantum particles.
I follow this so far.


Now to say we dont understand what causes gravity is not entirely true. We found something predicted by Einstine that tells us alot about gravity. We have discovered indeed gravity waves do exist just recently.
Are you talking about the evidence of gravitational waves in the CMB? That's kind of indirect, or an inference, but they are still trying to make more direct measurements unless you know something I don't.


This means quantum gravitons do exist so now we have a particle and we can detect the field it creates you know this as gravity.What were trying to figure out is the connection between mass and gravity or more why does higs boson produce gravitons?
OK this is where you lost me. Even if you accept the evidence for gravitational waves, predicted by Einstein, this was from relativity and not from quantum theory, so how does this mean gravitons exist? That's another question, isn't it?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
this is why Higgs field was born, unfortunately this field denies the no eather Universe, a field has physical properties by se, at least a distance from one arbitrary point to another which leads to a reference point for any movement.
relativity is dead at this point
I wouldn't say relativity is dead, because the standard model including the Higgs works with special relativity as far as I know.


Yes relativity is fine hes also not truly understanding the Higgs field either,Some physicists suppose that the Higgs Field permeates all space. This is pure speculation because the Higgs Boson has always been detected near particles. This means that we do not know if the Higgs Field permeates all space, or if it is locally created by these particles.For example magnetic fields dont exist everywhere there created through particle interactions and are local. See theirs a relationship between fields and particles.Fields are made up of oscillating quantum particles. Now to say we dont understand what causes gravity is not entirely true. We found something predicted by Einstine that tells us alot about gravity. We have discovered indeed gravity waves do exist just recently. This means quantum gravitons do exist so now we have a particle and we can detect the field it creates you know this as gravity.What were trying to figure out is the connection between mass and gravity or more why does higs boson produce gravitons?


Would you say the gravity field exists everywhere? Or its something created by mass, and weve only measured it where mass is?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well currently there are two proofs of gravitons one being the detection of the gravity waves this tells us just like EM waves there is a particle involved or it could not travel through empty space.And remember a field is an oscillating quantum particle. Number two Is the discovery of whats called a zz event. So let us just say its not so much doubted that gravitons exist but where trying to figure out wht there created. Heres the charts

www-cdf.fnal.gov...


edit on 5/14/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/14/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Ok so in the middle of the sun is like a ball of helium atoms at are semi densely packed together?

And all these reactions you are talking about, is there lots of space between the quanta, or is it pretty dense, and is it all so particularly, or is it more flowy and bandy. Like is it always these free singular electrons and hydrogen is pretty singular right, or is more like areas of groupings hitting other areas of groupings, and sloshing all together?

And so with the helium suggestion you are saying, there is a certain point where quanta reaches a stable state where it is no longer likely to interact or change? But even in that state the jostling of neighboring quanta causes energy to be caused to travel outwards?

And so there are electrons in the sun that stay in the sun, but they are not the primary source of radiation. The primary source of radiation, is, protons and neutrons coming together, and protons and neutrons coming together 'squeezes' energy that would have been in between them, and that is fusion and radiation?

Or it has to do with weak force and/or strong force. Because once they are together their intrinsic forces have to use less of their personal energy to keep each other together, the difference, is ejected, when they lock into place?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
The core is very dense, models estimate around 150 x that of water. So the material is really quite squeezed together.

The radiation released is in kenetic energy of the daughter nuclei (Helium-4) and the various gammas, positrons or electrons or neutrinos that are ejected as a result of fusion or subsequent decay. Energy isn't squeezed out as such. Different configurations of the nucleus have different stability and energy levels similar to atomic physics. Systems always want to be in the lowest state and so typically if you fuse two particles like in the sun, the resulting particle is in an excited state, and it will radiate a gamma in order to return to the ground state.

The last statement you make is closest to the model yes.

A helium atom is held together and in that configuration the mass of this system is less than 4 protons alone would be. This energy difference or mass difference is what energy is released during a decay or a fusion process. This is so called Binding energy, and is likely to do with the strong force and the exchange of gluons within the nucleus



While density is high, the material is not still not degenerate, so free flow of material is possible, even at this super high density, it is still considered a gas/fluid due to the high temperatures



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join