How Does the Sun Work?

The old name-calling routine!

It speaks loud and clear to expose a lack of reason.

a reply to: ConnectDots

You literally called anyone who didn't buy into your nonsense as only doing because they have an ego, entrenched in their beliefs and "clinging to their textbooks", with all the implications that entails. You are a hypocrite who can only spam junk science YouTube videos and make ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you.

Edit:

Ok, let's put your beliefs to the test.

1) What quantifiable predictions does EU make?

2) How can it be falsified?

Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

I've seen physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project called a "liar" here.

Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Hope springs eternal.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

It's also a problem for fools.

I noticed you didn't answer my questions.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The sun's temperature gradient belies the nuclear furnace model, but supports the electric sun model.

Why on earth would you think that sunspots are "windows" into the Sun's interior? They are simply cooler patches on the Sun's surface, caused by concentrations of magnetic field flux inhibiting convection.

Thus, the whole foundation for the "electric sun" falls apart.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

Not really. The only things I see being ridiculed are those that are very much deserving of ridicule. Such as this.

I've seen physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project called a "liar" here.

Ever think there may be a reason for that?

Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Sure. As soon as they present verifiable, falsifiable ideas that aren't easily dismissed with a grade school level understanding of basic science.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ParasuvO

NASA landed on the Sun and took measurements.

They done it at night so it wouldn't get too hot.

Unexpected laugh. And I needed it

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Sure - when these non-mainstream sources have empirically tested evidence that can be verified by other scientific bodies around the world.

a reply to: noonebutme

What is required for that is enough courage and determination from people to go up against mainstream vested interests in the status quo.

That's what the problem is.

Many open-minded researchers in science and technology are scared to death of the ridicule they are going to have to deal with.

a reply to: ConnectDots

They only get "ridiculed" when they put forth a rediculous theory without any evidence.

What we have here with the EU is a hypothesis. That needs no evidence, just ideas. Once there IS evidence it is then a theory.

But, as per normal with the EU thing, there's no evidence, only a lack of understanding or, even worse, an understanding of how things work, but they just want to push their merchandise.

Once there is evidence, they won't be ridiculed. Until then, the EU stuff is pure fantasy. HAHA!

a reply to: ConnectDots

Being open-minded isn't about being willfully ignorant of current "mainstream" knowledge and lapping up blatant nonsense. That's having one's mind firmly shut.

You keep crowing about how these quacks are sidelined because the "mainstream" isn't "open-minded" when the reality is that they're peddling abject nonsense to people who are ignorant and gullible enough to buy into it. No conspiracy theories needed.

I ask you again:

1) What quantifiable predictions does EU make?

2) How can it be falsified?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
What is required for that is enough courage and determination from people to go up against mainstream vested interests in the status quo.

Science doesn't stop people from questioning it. In fact, it welcomes it - that's the only way it progresses.

Many open-minded researchers in science and technology are scared to death of the ridicule they are going to have to deal with.

Really? Who? Name 5.

That's what the problem is.

No. The problem is people who argue against science with nothing but assumption and opinion.

Why do you think courts of law operate on the basis of *evidence* and not 'your opinion' ? If people like you were in charge, then you could accuse anyone of anything with no evidence - only how you feel or what you think.

Nope. You're completely wrong in this case and I'm glad you sit at the back of the classroom doodling in your notebook and wondering why the other kids get higher grades then you.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

I've seen physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project called a "liar" here.

Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Hope springs eternal.

Change the record mate. It's getting boring hearing the same thing from you every time someone asks you for proof or anything similar.

Do you remember in maths class at school, the teacher would tell you to "show your working" for any question in a test? Same thing here...these guys you believe need to show their working (maths, predictions and experimental results) to be taken seriously. Yet they don't. I wonder why...

originally posted by: cooperton
I agree but the mainstream thought is that matter rules all, despite matter being mostly empty space and completely a side-effect of the electrical activity of the atom.

The space within the atom is not really empty, though, correct?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: cooperton
I agree but the mainstream thought is that matter rules all, despite matter being mostly empty space and completely a side-effect of the electrical activity of the atom.

The space within the atom is not really empty, though, correct?

No, its empty. Unless you count the particles coming into existence and then disappearing.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
And what causes those particles to appear?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014
And what causes those particles to appear?

The double-slit experiment insists that it is Conscious Observation that cause waveforms to collapse into particles:



If particles are subordinate to consciousness, then it seems impossible that particles/matter reacting randomly could have generated consciousness. Similarly, a material explanation for the sun does not do it justice.

a reply to: ConnectDots

en.wikipedia.org...


And before you say anything, the theory has some solid foundations, namely quantum tunnelling. Transistors work on quantum tunneling. If our understanding of quantum mechanics was wrong, you would not have the computer you are typing on right now since computers are made of billions of transistors.

To be honest with you, I'm not a physicist, though am deeply interested in this kind of thing. Other members will definitely have much better answers for you regarding QM than i could ever give you

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014
And what causes those particles to appear?

The double-slit experiment insists that it is Conscious Observation that cause waveforms to collapse into particles:

If particles are subordinate to consciousness, then it seems impossible that particles/matter reacting randomly could have generated consciousness. Similarly, a material explanation for the sun does not do it justice.

The double slit experiment has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness.

a reply to: cooperton

It seems to me that whether or not light is a particle or a wave, and the double-slit experiment, is a different topic from the topic of what is called "the vacuum," which supposedly is "empty space," yet still has these pesky particles that pop in and out of existence, coined "virtual particles."

It seems to me that instead of naming the things "virtual particles" and continuing to describe space as empty, science should admit that space is not empty, and should start focusing on it as a frontier for exploration.