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: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yep, thanks for the response.

This was why I was interested in the electric sun model though, if some scientists still think it might be true because of some yet unknown process, ie, something hidden from observation because of dark matter or whatever reason, since science has a lot of unanswered questions in this area of study. It is worth pondering, and that is what interests me about it. puzzles..

If electrons always pull towards the highest positive charge, there could be a reason they are going away from the sun besides being pushed.. This isn't my field of study, but sometimes it is more fun not to know too much..

edit on 28-2-2014 by alienreality because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


This is exactly what I meant. People do the same with ID. Find one unknown In evolution and forget to other things that wouldn't work if there theory was true.

Well done.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   

alienreality
This was why I was interested in the electric sun model though, if some scientists still think it might be true because of some yet unknown process, ie, something hidden from observation because of dark matter or whatever reason
There's virtually no debate in the scientific community about this (whether the sun is powered by fusion or electricity).


since science has a lot of unanswered questions in this area of study. It is worth pondering, and that is what interests me about it. puzzles..
Specifically, what questions?

The electric sun model doesn't answer any questions. Basically every claim I've heard that it does is some sort of lie or distortion. In fact it not only answers less questions than the mainstream model but it contradicts observation.


alienreality
sometimes it is more fun not to know too much.
If you want to debate scientific topics that aren't debated at all by scientists, it's probably a requirement to not know too much, but sadly this is the norm in electric universe threads. However should you choose to learn more, the topics that scientists debate can be pretty interesting, like there is a little bit of debate about MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) versus dark matter for example. You have to know a little bit more to follow that debate but it can be fun too.
edit on 28-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Mary Rose

"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?


yeh, sorry, this is too short written to understand.

OK, people tell us, that if you take a positive charge and a negative charge close together ( which attract each other ) they cancel each other out. -1 + 1 = 0
what is left is nothing, no charge.

I disagree.

the number -1 or +1 is just a representation, a scalar.
If I say I have 1, I need to tell what, one apple, one car, one electric charge and so on.

I would calculate this way
-1[e] +1[e] result 0[2e] ( not equal 0, result 0 )
so -1 and +1 is the scalar/direction, witch cancel the force direction, but it does not cancel the net electric strength

Hope this is more clear
edit on 28-2-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 


Yes, it does and it is thought-provoking.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


I think that there is no missing matter. Rather, gravity itself needs to be understood and seen within the context of electricity and magnetism. The math which we know works can work within a different paradigm.

Physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project has an article on his website, "Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe":


. . . Matter and mass

Gravity acts in proportion to the mass of an object. What do we mean when we refer to the ‘mass’ of an object? “One of the most astonishing features of the history of physics is the confusion which surrounds the definition of the key term in dynamics, mass.” [13] Early in the 20th century numerous textbooks equated the mass of an object to its weight. That equation led to confusion because it doesn’t explain why the mass of an object we measure on a weighing machine (gravitational mass) is identical to the mass of that object when we push it (inertial mass).

When it was found that atoms are composed of charged particles, there were attempts to explain mass in terms of electromagnetism. Henri Poincaré wrote in 1914, “What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.” It makes good sense that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass should be explained by the electrical structure of matter. However, it is not the philosophical concept of mass but its mathematical treatment that occupies physicists. Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, demonstrated that mass and electromagnetic energy are directly related. But mystification resulted when the earlier concept that related mass to ‘quantity of matter’ was unconsciously substituted. Textbooks and encyclopaedias today slip unnoticeably into the error of using the words ‘mass’ and ‘matter’ interchangeably. A NASA educational website tells us that “mass is a measure of how much matter a planet is made of.” It shows that the confusion of mass with quantity of matter infects astrophysics.

The consequences are profound for cosmology. The mass of a celestial body cannot tell us about its composition. . . .

What is gravity?

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. . . .

www.holoscience.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The Thunderbolts Project is an inter-disciplinary project.

A book which was instrumental in bringing the players of the project together is Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

I am reading a .pdf file that I purchased entitled "Electricity or Gravity: Which Rules the Universe?" by Wal Thornhill. The file is of a presentation given by Thornhill and published in Chronology & Catastropphism Review 2008: The Journal of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies.

Thornhill talked about what he called the big bang legend. He offered an alternative theory for galaxy formation and rotation.

To quote the .pdf:


The title of my paper poses a fundamental question for the story told today about the universe - its origin, structure and behaviour - our 'big bang' cosmology. The answer presented here removes the need to invent unseen (dark) matter and unexplained (dark) forces to save the purely theoretical 'big bang' legend. The answer relies upon a simple, laboratory tested, commonsense mechanism governing galaxy formation and rotation. By extension to the stellar environment, it explains planetary birth, capture, catastrophe and subsequent orbital stability, although it requires letting go of our certainty about the nature of gravity and our understanding of Newton's celebrated 'law'.

The Search for an Answer

The search began for me in the 1950s, after reading the works of Immanuel Velikovsky, the prominent 20th century catastrophist. He wrote in the opening pages of Worlds in Collision that if the celestial mechanics of Newton were sacrosanct, his (Velikovsky's) theory of recent cosmic catastrophes, was heresy. If close planetary interactions occurred within human memory, then the assumed timeless order of Newton's clockwork solar system was just a comforting illusion. Velikovsky drew upon the analogy of electrons changing orbits in an atom under the influence of electromagnetic forces to explain recent changes in the solar system. No astronomer of that time, or since, has felt it necessary to pick up this gauntlet of cosmic electromagnetic forces that Velikovsky threw down. It is an article of faith that the universe is everywhere electrically neutral.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


I think that there is no missing matter. Rather, gravity itself needs to be understood and seen within the context of electricity and magnetism. The math which we know works can work within a different paradigm.
This statement and Thornhill's quote is all talk and nothing is explained such as how this would match observation. What is the model? How can it be tested?

If there's a model that explains observations better than dark matter, you may not want to believe this, but scientists would actually love to find it. But I don't see any model or how any of this talk explains observations any better.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Mary Rose
To quote the .pdf . . .


Another quote which leads in to the name "Thunderbolts Project":


Perhaps Velikovsky's atomic analogy may have contributed to the rejection of his thesis, because gravity plays no role between particles orbiting within an atom, and while energy transfer does occur, no charge is exchanged when subatomic particles change orbits. However, he had also dared to ask the question that was anathema to astronomers: have the planets always moved on their present orbits? I believe the evidence amassed by Velikovsky shows that planets could change orbits, exchanging thunderbolts and wreaking global catastrophe, and then quickly settle into peaceful orbits. This rapid recovery of stability following chaos defies our present understanding of gravitationally bound many-body systems, which, for more than a 2-body system, are theoretically chaotic. It implies that our understanding of the real nature of gravity and the dynamics of the solar system is incomplete.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Reply to Arbitrageur:

I missed where they think the sun is powered by electricity and not fusion, I should have studied this model of theirs more closely..

I already know it is fusion myself.. At least I have always been accepting of that.

I see electricity as a necessary force and a result of fusion being used to keep everything going, but I am not saying that fusion is out of any equation..

Just by simple thinking, I would say that fusion is generating electricity, or is the root cause of it..


edit on 28-2-2014 by alienreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


In my opinon the sun is simply the out put of a black hole and would be generating large currents as atoms of large planets and moons are torn apart as fuel in our sun.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Yes, I think that is what confuses some, about the black hole's undiscovered properties, and dark matter causing the electrical permeability of gravity and magnetism are not yet fully defined by science. Our universe is not aware of these problems, and so it keeps on working along perfectly..



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

alienreality
Just by simple thinking, I would say that fusion is generating electricity, or is the root cause of it.
Right, well then in that simplified view you agree more or less with mainstream science, which has been studying the sun's electricity and electromagnetic effects for many years, deducing that fusion is the ultimate source of the observed effects.

We didn't even get into neutrinos and all the other evidence for fusion. At one point the electric sun folks said there was a missing neutrino problem with the fusion model for the sun, and they were right about that, there was. But now that all the missing neutrinos have been found, you'd think they'd finally drop the idea, but no, they haven't.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

KrzYma

Mary Rose

"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?


yeh, sorry, this is too short written to understand.

OK, people tell us, that if you take a positive charge and a negative charge close together ( which attract each other ) they cancel each other out. -1 + 1 = 0
what is left is nothing, no charge.

I disagree.

the number -1 or +1 is just a representation, a scalar.
If I say I have 1, I need to tell what, one apple, one car, one electric charge and so on.

I would calculate this way
-1[e] +1[e] result 0[2e] ( not equal 0, result 0 )
so -1 and +1 is the scalar/direction, witch cancel the force direction, but it does not cancel the net electric strength

Hope this is more clear
edit on 28-2-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)


You're showing a lack of understanding about energy. Energy is movement electrons flowing causes electricity either they are flowing or they aren't.You cant have a negative flow of energy there is no negative electricity. As far as electric universe this theory has been proven wrong on so many levels. In fact it cant even answer the basic questions about the universe and is contrary to observations. The electric universe wants to do away with gravity saying its an interaction of positive and negative flow. If that is the case how come an ELECTRIC CHARGE HAS NO EFFECT ON GRAVITY?

Then we know fusion is occurring in the sun because scientists can observe the flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion. That is, the flux of neutrinos observed at the expected energy for neutrinos from that fusion reaction,this is predicted by standard models again electric universe has no explanation for this. When these websites push the electric universe they never look at the full implications of their theory, And check if it is contrary to observation.See people like to feel science is wrong thats fine but realize mainstream science does not "turn a blind eye" to the possibility of other energy generating mechanisms. Rather, they reject the notion for good, solid reasons. They are called, in a word, physics. In order to reject the fundamental theory of fusion in the stellar interior, it would be necessary, to all at once sweep away literally everything known about hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics, thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, and electromagnetism.In effect you would have to do away with hundreds of years of experiments and observations. We might have got something wrong but we didnt get everything wrong.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

alienreality
Just by simple thinking, I would say that fusion is generating electricity, or is the root cause of it.
Right, well then in that simplified view you agree more or less with mainstream science, which has been studying the sun's electricity and electromagnetic effects for many years, deducing that fusion is the ultimate source of the observed effects.

We didn't even get into neutrinos and all the other evidence for fusion. At one point the electric sun folks said there was a missing neutrino problem with the fusion model for the sun, and they were right about that, there was. But now that all the missing neutrinos have been found, you'd think they'd finally drop the idea, but no, they haven't.


I just blame that on a lack of understanding because certain websites i refuse to mention make it sound good. Since this is about the ribbons found i was unaware of this but i really dont see how this disproves the standard model. See the sun goes through cycles every 11 years it changes its magnetic field in fact goes to zero and reboots so to speak. There is a solar field caused by the flow of electrons called the current sheet. The current sheet is a sprawling surface jutting outward from the sun's equator where the sun's slowly-rotating magnetic field induces an electrical current. The current itself is small, only one ten-billionth of an amp per square meter (0.0000000001 amps/m2). these amps flows through a region 10,000 km thick and billions of kilometers wide. Electrically speaking, the entire heliosphere is organized around this sheet of electrons. See scientists do take electricity into account any way with field reversal about to occur im not surprised we see ribbons at the heliosphere because during field reversals, the current sheet becomes very wavy instead of smooth. Now ill look into this a bit more but it doesnt really surprise me.
edit on 3/1/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


please enlighten me!
what is energy ?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
What we know about electricity is that it is a form of plasma, and the same is true of fusion, and essentially all forms we describe as energy.

The electric universe is also the plasma universe theory, which a more accurate description.

Gravity would then be another form of plasma, or my theory, the motion of bodies through space, dragging long plasma structures is what creates gravity.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


There was an old thread here on ATS back in 2007:

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

John Lear also claimed this way back when. Interesting.

-MM



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MerkabaMeditation
 


Looks like it was a good discussion.

Interesting to me that it was in the Space Exploration forum rather than this forum.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

poet1b
The electric universe is also the plasma universe theory, which a more accurate description.


In this video, Wal Thornhill says that plasma cosmology has been around for decades now and is recognized by the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), but astronomers ignore it:




new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join