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.
There's virtually no debate in the scientific community about this (whether the sun is powered by fusion or electricity).
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
Specifically, what questions?
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 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.
alienreality
sometimes it is more fun not to know too much.
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?
. . . 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...
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.
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?
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.
Mary Rose
To quote the .pdf . . .
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.
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.
alienreality
Just by simple thinking, I would say that fusion is generating electricity, or is the root cause of it.
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 clearedit on 28-2-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)
Arbitrageur
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.
alienreality
Just by simple thinking, I would say that fusion is generating electricity, or is the root cause of it.
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.
poet1b
The electric universe is also the plasma universe theory, which a more accurate description.