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: 57
55
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped
I haven't seen Don Scott or Wal Thornhill show interest in doing real science. They seem to be more interested in selling books and DVDs.

Tom Bridgman has challenged EU proponents to use their "model" to make testable predictions for the upcoming solar probe, including an engineering evaluation of the environment to which it will be subjected, necessary to design the spacecraft.

It will be interesting to see if anybody steps up to the plate to answer this challenge.

Death by Electric Universe. I. EU's Unsolvable Problem

A Challenge to Electric Sun Supporters

Electric Sun models propose a radically different particle environment in the interplanetary medium than the standard solar models. Therefore the particle radiation environment will be very different.

I have repeatedly challenged EU supporters and 'theorists' to demonstrate how details of the heliosphere environment are calculated, but have received nothing but excuses (see Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'). Perhaps this would be a good project for EU's new "scholarship" program (see Electric Universe 2013—Expanding our Scholarship Outreach)!

If Electric Sun theorists can't tell us how to estimate these important quantities, how can they be competent to build satellites to travel to these frontiers of the solar system?
That's a good link because he explains how Don Scott's and Wal Thornhill's electric sun models differ from each other, so they wouldn't even have the same predictions, if they made them.


originally posted by: dragonridr
6. missing neutrinos
There are no missing neutrinos anymore
Yes, I was also surprised to see missing neutrinos mentioned since that problem was solved, over decade ago. It was in 2001 when the the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada made the detections that solved the mystery, so it's not like it was just solved earlier this year.




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi

It's a very simple question so i'm not sure why it's going back and forth like this without an answer: what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect? The onus is on the proponent to provide this.

Let me give you an example: if evolution was incorrect, we would expect to see no correlation between evolutionary complexity and time in the fossil record. See? That's a testable observation that would refute evolution.



Im no EU proponent, but I suppose their answer to your question ; 'what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?', would be; the observations the standard model predicts.

To my view, just in a sense as string theory attempted and attempts to do, EU has taken all of sciences history, and all of observations, and said 'we do not believe your interpretation of reality and data is the most truthful observation because 'a, b and c', so this interpretation which differs from yours, is referred to as EU.
edit on 30-6-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Im no EU proponent, but I suppose their answer to your question ; 'what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?', would be; the observations the standard model predicts.


Just to clarify: are you suggesting that any prediction made by the SM that is validated by observation would falsify EU?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It will be interesting to see if anybody steps up to the plate to answer this challenge.


Scott has issued several rejoinders and rebuttals to Bridgman's criticisms.

Linked here: sites.google.com...


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Yes, I was also surprised to see missing neutrinos mentioned since that problem was solved, over decade ago. It was in 2001 when the the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada made the detections that solved the mystery, so it's not like it was just solved earlier this year.


I wouldn't call it "solved." More like theorized out of existence, rather than solved through scientific means.



edit on 6/30/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It will be interesting to see if anybody steps up to the plate to answer this challenge.


Scott has issued several rejoinders and rebuttals to Bridgman's criticisms.

Linked here: sites.google.com...


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Yes, I was also surprised to see missing neutrinos mentioned since that problem was solved, over decade ago. It was in 2001 when the the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada made the detections that solved the mystery, so it's not like it was just solved earlier this year.


I wouldn't call it "solved." More like theorized out of existence, rather than solved through scientific means.




I would first the problem wasnt the total number of neutrinos we knew we couldnt see all of them. It was about the flavors basically how the neutrinos were formed we believed something was wrong with the fusion process never assumed it wasnt fusion just the fact neutrinos where there showed us fusion occurred. Problem was we didnt see enough of one type the Electron-neutrinos. There are three types: the electron-neutrino, the muon-neutrino and the tau-neutrino. Electron-neutrinos, which are associated with the familiar electron, are emitted in vast numbers by the nuclear reactions that fuel the Sun. Turns out about half of the electron neutrinos with energies of less than 2MeV change flavor before reaching Earth. At higher energies, this oscillation rate is greater. There’s a trend; the higher the energy, the less likely the neutrino detection. This strange behavior is known as the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein (MSW) effect.After experiments showed us this flavor change its now perfectly in line with predictions from the standard model.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 6/30/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It will be interesting to see if anybody steps up to the plate to answer this challenge.


Scott has issued several rejoinders and rebuttals to Bridgman's criticisms.

Linked here: sites.google.com...
That rejoinder to bridgman is in response to the 48-page paper Bridgman wrote in 2008. It doesn't say anything about how to design the solar probe plus which is a challenge Bridgman issued 4 years after that 48 page paper.

The author of that link you posted said this:

7. Those who demand that ES proponents state exactly how, where, and by what paths electrons get to the Sun seem not to be even more outraged by the claim that invisible "missing matter" exists and is responsible for dozens of otherwise inexplicable observations. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?
Yes he's the only one to see the irony. We know what electrons are, and we know how to detect them, and we have detected them in the solar wind, moving away from the sun.

We aren't sure what dark matter particles are or if they can even be detected, so there's a big difference in detection, but more to the point of the solar probe mission, dark matter is not considered to be a challenge to the spacecraft design but electrons and other charged particles like protons and some heavier ions are, in addition to intense EM radiation.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Im no EU proponent, but I suppose their answer to your question ; 'what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?', would be; the observations the standard model predicts.


Just to clarify: are you suggesting that any prediction made by the SM that is validated by observation would falsify EU?


No, just all the ones scientific observations had proven wrong, enough of which appears to justify the interpretive creation of a new theory.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That rejoinder to bridgman is in response to the 48-page paper Bridgman wrote in 2008. It doesn't say anything about how to design the solar probe plus which is a challenge Bridgman issued 4 years after that 48 page paper.


Oh, that's because EU people don't go wasting billions on solar probes when they can trial test their theories in the lab first. Good thing they have secured funding.

www.thunderbolts.info...


part 2: www.youtube.com...

I'm sure once they have the theory worked out in the lab, they will make recommendations on probes.



edit on 6/30/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah, lets use big words to confuse the readers and make it seem like you made a point that contradicts what I said.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Oh, that's because EU people don't go wasting billions on solar probes when they can trial test their theories in the lab first. Good thing they have secured funding.
That doesn't make sense on so many levels. Even if they can do lab tests of their theories, there's no way to know if the lab tests represent the actual sun without making measurements of the actual sun.

Also it's very difficult to model the sun in a lab. We can force fusion in a lab without a star's gravity, but since the lab fusion is not a gravity-driven process, it won't model the sun accurately. Even if you don't believe in solar fusion you'd have to admit the sun's gravity is a significant factor in any model of the sun.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah, lets use big words to confuse the readers and make it seem like you made a point that contradicts what I said.



Merely pointing out that this isnt some ify science it indeed was experimentally tested. See several EU supporters like to play it off by saying scientists just make things up. This couldnt be further from the truth if a scientists publishes work for review they include their data and others will conduct the experiment as well. If it cannot be verified than its thrown out as a bad data set. You have to deny science and experiments this is why EU supporters are left with attacking science. If it was a valid theory it would have some corroborating evidence by now. Its not like scientists didnt look into the possibility but there is just to many problems trying to make electricity the driving force in the universe.

For example there is no source for the electric sun to explain the high voltage needed. Solar wind again we should see electrons moving in one direction protons in another in solar wind not there. Neutrinos there is no way to explain them at all without fusion period. If stars' luminosity and spectral classes are determined by electric input and size of plasma pinched together in the star's formation (both should always be random), then there should not be gaps in the HR diagram. According to the Electric Star theory, a star's temperature and therefore spectral class is determined by the current density. Now take into account that a randomly sized amount of plasma and gas is collected together to form a star. We all know that a star's luminosity is a function of its size and spectral class. This being so, we should expect totally random luminosities and sizes in the ES scenario. Supernovae also occur only in specific types of stars known as supergiants. If supernovae were caused by high electric stress that make the bright blue stars fission, then we would expect not just blue supergiants (which do explode), but also white dwarfs, white and blue main sequencers, and supposedly also pulsars all having higher rates of "fissioning" than red giants. Instead, we see only the massive supergiants explode.

Now this is just off the top of my head as far as problems with EU. I could go on but you get the point EU cant even answer the most basic things like star categories that is why it will not replace the standard model. New theories have to not only explain what the previous one could (EU cant) but also needs to bring something new the old theory cant explain.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

This may be an off topic question, most likely, but; is the reason the sun has magnetic poles because it rotates?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
...
Also it's very difficult to model the sun in a lab. We can force fusion in a lab without a star's gravity, but since the lab fusion is not a gravity-driven process, it won't model the sun accurately. Even if you don't believe in solar fusion you'd have to admit the sun's gravity is a significant factor in any model of the sun.


now you get it right.
Gravitational model of the Sun can not and never will be reproduced in laboratory experiments.

plasma however can be experimented in the lab.



Even if they can do lab tests of their theories, there's no way to know if the lab tests represent the actual sun without making measurements of the actual sun.


but this is exactly how standard models work.
- measuring/calculating the speed of light on Earth and applying it to the whole Universe
- math says you can add mass together and the model produces Black Holes
- red shift with the assumption light speed is constant makes Universe expand and leads to creationism ( Big Bang )



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



For example there is no source for the electric sun to explain the high voltage needed. Solar wind again we should see electrons moving in one direction protons in another in solar wind not there.


Birkeland currents




Neutrinos there is no way to explain them at all without fusion period.


there is fusion on the Sun, on the surface. Less than SM predicts but enough for neutrinos ( choose the flavor
)

BTW: I think you should really see the part two of this the above posted video

edit on 1-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr



For example there is no source for the electric sun to explain the high voltage needed. Solar wind again we should see electrons moving in one direction protons in another in solar wind not there.


Birkeland currents




Neutrinos there is no way to explain them at all without fusion period.


there is fusion on the Sun, on the surface. Less than SM predicts but enough for neutrinos ( choose the flavor
)

BTW: I think you should really see the part two of this the above posted video


You do realize birkeland currents are caused by the solar wind hitting the magnetosphere neither condition applies to the sun since it is the source of the solar wind come on now think.

And i would love to know how fusion occurs on the surface of the sun since the temperature and pressure would not be enough let me guess cold fusion right??? If fusion were occurring on the surface we would easily detect it sorry you bought into a myth.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Im no EU proponent, but I suppose their answer to your question ; 'what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?', would be; the observations the standard model predicts.


Just to clarify: are you suggesting that any prediction made by the SM that is validated by observation would falsify EU?


No, just all the ones scientific observations had proven wrong, enough of which appears to justify the interpretive creation of a new theory.


That's still not falsification. This is the same false dichotomy used by other pseudo-scientists such as creationists. "Proving X wrong makes us right!". That's not how science works. I'm asking for what specific observations would falsify the EU hypothesis. It would appear that I'm not going to get my answer.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Im no EU proponent, but I suppose their answer to your question ; 'what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?', would be; the observations the standard model predicts.


Just to clarify: are you suggesting that any prediction made by the SM that is validated by observation would falsify EU?


No, just all the ones scientific observations had proven wrong, enough of which appears to justify the interpretive creation of a new theory.


That's still not falsification. This is the same false dichotomy used by other pseudo-scientists such as creationists. "Proving X wrong makes us right!". That's not how science works. I'm asking for what specific observations would falsify the EU hypothesis. It would appear that I'm not going to get my answer.


EU has a lot of different tenants it seems, it seems if experiments and observations were made that proved those tenants false, that is how it would be falsified.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

This may be off topic too, but why exactly is standard model and gravity not compatible?

Why cant the variables be altered little by little, like guess and check, even by a computer or super computer, until it arrives at the correct equal equation? Including the notions of energy, quantity and quality, and the force of gravity related?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

What are those tenants? What observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was wrong?


A simple procedure can be used to determine whether or not a hypothesis or conjecture is scientific and falsifiable. What would be an example of something that, if observed, would contradict the hypothesis? If this question cannot be answered, then the conjecture is not scientific. In addition, a good test of a theory is that it is able to make predictions about some future event. For example, Einstein's ideas about relativity predicted specific things that would be observed during a total solar eclipse. When the eclipse came, the predictions were confirmed, something which strongly supported his theory.


rationalwiki.org...



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The Solar probe has been many years in planning and costing a fortune, more jobs for the boys. What would have been so tough to send a cheap probe with basic instruments towards the biggest gravity well around, watch the instruments until the probe fails, then adjust the design to be able to deal with the conditions that killed it, and try again, and keep getting closer a nd closer to the Sun? Action not words would be much more interesting to us casual observers too, making bets perhaps on how far it will get. The Mercury Messenger device has a thin, ceramic cloth heat shield, they should send it off towards the Sun when it reaches the end of its work at Mercury and see how far it gets.




top topics



 
55
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join