Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

dragonridr

Arbitrageur
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I did ask for a better source; have you got one? I don't think that source I posted was very good, however if I understand what you're talking about, I hadn't considered it negative energy, because simply flipping the spatial coordinate system can change the signs meaning the negative changes to positive and vice versa, so I considered them vector signs, and not a type of energy. The type of energy discussed in that link I posted doesn't flip signs when the spatial coordinate system is flipped. However according to this negative energy can be viewed in terms of a positive energy solution moving backward in time:

``Negative Energy'' Solutions: Hole Theory

Another way to look at the ``negative energy'' solution is as a positive energy solution moving backward in time. This makes the same change of the sign in the exponential. The particle would move in the opposite direction of its momentum. It would also behave as if it had the opposite charge.

I hate to do this because i hate giving people math homework but this will give you an idea of why the unverse has zero energy or well close to it as we can tell.

www.curtismenning.com...

Fif you even read the article you posted? Even there there talking this is the last ditch effort like i said i fear negotiations are coning to an end. Even NATO is warning Russia this is it read the article.

reply to post by dragonridr

Thanks for dumbing it down somewhat for me, but that goes a little bit too far. I admitted my first source wasn't good, but that source is even worse. Seems like about 95% of the universe is unaccounted for in those calculations which if I'm reading it right pertain to baryonic matter, and don't seem to consider dark matter nor dark energy. I wonder if dark energy was even known when that was written because I don't remember seeing a 12 billion years estimate for the age of the universe since last century, before dark energy was discovered. The latest estimates are something like 13.8 billion years. This would seem to suggest my guess about that source possibly being from last century may be correct, since by 2002 we had a problem with that 12 billion years age estimate:

earthsky.org...

Since the universe can’t be younger than one of its stars, a white dwarf’s age establishes a lower boundary of the age of the universe. In 2002, astronomers found white dwarfs that were 12-13 billion years old.

Of course it takes time for the first stars to form so we must also add that time to the age of the oldest stars in comparison to the age of the universe.

Arbitrageur
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Thanks for dumbing it down somewhat for me, but that goes a little bit too far. I admitted my first source wasn't good, but that source is even worse. Seems like about 95% of the universe is unaccounted for in those calculations which if I'm reading it right pertain to baryonic matter, and don't seem to consider dark matter nor dark energy. I wonder if dark energy was even known when that was written because I don't remember seeing a 12 billion years estimate for the age of the universe since last century, before dark energy was discovered. The latest estimates are something like 13.8 billion years. This would seem to suggest my guess about that source possibly being from last century may be correct, since by 2002 we had a problem with that 12 billion years age estimate:

earthsky.org...

Since the universe can’t be younger than one of its stars, a white dwarf’s age establishes a lower boundary of the age of the universe. In 2002, astronomers found white dwarfs that were 12-13 billion years old.

Of course it takes time for the first stars to form so we must also add that time to the age of the oldest stars in comparison to the age of the universe.

edit on 14-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

His math is off but it gives you an idea of the principle the alternative was me trying to have several math problems in about 5 posts. Kust wanted you to see what it is thasn you can figure it out. As far as the universe well we are clueless we only understand roughly 4 percent of it. Heres what i mean we figure dark matter takes up 60 percent of the universe yet were clueless as to what it is. We know its there we see its effects but still have no idea what it is. Than theres dark energy hate that term any way again we see the effects its causing expansion it makes up 36 percent yet once again were clueless as to how its created. We have some theories at least on this one but nothing near concrete. So bottom line is 96 percent of the universe is a mystery to us. So everything we see and feel falls in that 4 percent. This is why i laugh when people start that whole science thinks they know everything its actually the opposite we know weve learned very little.

But i guess when people hang on to disproven theories they have to say science is wrong. The only problem is they dont understand to find out what that 96 percent of the universe is we are literally removing options like electric universe. Because when someone comes up with something all we can do is see if it can be disproved if it can than its obviously not it. Science has been working exactly opposite of what people think it has which is funny.

reply to post by dragonridr


Like the chicken or the egg; What came first, gravity or energy?

Arbitrageur

ImaFungi
There is no such thing as negative energy.

Wisegeek has a write-up on it:

Negative Energy
Have you got a better source?

edit on 14-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

If you define a quanta of the universe to equal the words 'negative energy', then I agree negative energy exists. But in reality there is only energy energy. In fact that is all reality is, energy. You can call falling down a mountain negative climbing, or climbing up a mountain negative falling, but are they not both displays of energy transforming?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Never thought of it that way but yeah exactly like that might have to use that in the future.

ImaFungi
If you define a quanta of the universe to equal the words 'negative energy', then I agree negative energy exists. But in reality there is only energy energy. In fact that is all reality is, energy. You can call falling down a mountain negative climbing, or climbing up a mountain negative falling, but are they not both displays of energy transforming?

Did you miss this which I posted on the last page?

``Negative Energy'' Solutions: Hole Theory

Another way to look at the ``negative energy'' solution is as a positive energy solution moving backward in time.

To use your analogy it would be like falling up the mountain due to the "backward in time" aspect. This is not the same as climbing up the mountain. The direction may be the same, but the energy flow is reversed.

Arbitrageur

ImaFungi
If you define a quanta of the universe to equal the words 'negative energy', then I agree negative energy exists. But in reality there is only energy energy. In fact that is all reality is, energy. You can call falling down a mountain negative climbing, or climbing up a mountain negative falling, but are they not both displays of energy transforming?

Did you miss this which I posted on the last page?

``Negative Energy'' Solutions: Hole Theory

Another way to look at the ``negative energy'' solution is as a positive energy solution moving backward in time.

To use your analogy it would be like falling up the mountain due to the "backward in time" aspect. This is not the same as climbing up the mountain. The direction may be the same, but the energy flow is reversed.

Exactly thats vectors put rather well i think i really didnt mean to steer things so far off topic but i guess it doesn't matter he threads dying anyway but when i get the time i think we need to have a physics area be interesting to see what ideas people have. Quantum mechanics does indeed use negative energy really thats what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is all about. A system can never have precisely zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly.In fact if negative energy didnt exist we would have stuff just popping into our universe all over the place.But the interesting part the less energy a system has the longer it lasts.Thanks to gravity the only force that always attracts the net energy balance of the universe is as close to zero as you can get.(remember gravity affects both mas and energy).This makes its life span of almost 14 billion years plausible.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


'Positive energy solution moving backwards in time'

What ever moves backwards in time? I understand when you read your equations backwards you are observing a symbolized abstraction of energy moving backwards in time, but in what way is that relevant to reality?

I think if Einstein had a few more years to think about it, he would have known that associating 'Space-time' to reality, that is time to the spatial medium of reality, as anything more then a helpful tool, that is to say to say that realities space is time or linked with time, and in your equations moving one way or the other then can allow you to say positive energy moved backwards in time, is a mistake.

Time is the transformation of energy. Energy exists, it transforms.

ImaFungi
in what way is that relevant to reality?

I don't think it necessarily represents reality exactly, it's a model which allows us to calculate what will happen in reality.

In what way is the square root of -1 relevant to reality? What number when multiplied by itself yields -1? There is no real number that does that, yet that imaginary number works in our models very well where we use it, like this one:

Impedance

In general, impedance has a complex value; this means that loads generally have a resistance component (symbol: R) which forms the real part of Z and a reactance component (symbol: X) which forms the imaginary part of Z.

You can use that math to make accurate predictions for electrical lab experiments, so it correlates to reality extremely well in that regard, but part of the math includes an imaginary component. The effect of reactance can be measured, so it's not imaginary in that respect; imaginary just refers to the use of the square root of -1 in the model, and I can tell you how reactance seems real, but not the square root of -1.

How can someone say Universe has 0 Energy or calculate anything if he is using the wrong formulas ??

Big Bang --- just an Idea that came from a priest ! ( creationists )
Dark Matter --- unsolved X, not a real thing but calculus only
Dark Energy --- same as dark matter
Gravity and Einstein's time space --- just an Idea with many many problems

Many scientists like to think that science already understands the ways of the natural world. The fundamental questions are answered, leaving only the details to be filled in. The impressive achievements of science seemed to support this confident attitude. But recent research has revealed unexpected problems at the heart of physics, cosmology, biology, medicine and psychology. Dr. Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books, including Science Set Free (September 2012).

part 1
www.youtube.com...
part 2
www.youtube.com...

Black Holes & Relativity
part 1
www.youtube.com...
part 2
www.youtube.com...

In this brief talk, Professor Pollack reflects on the ills within the culture of science and offers a prescription for a cure.

www.youtube.com...

enjoy !

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arent complex numbers pretty much making a 1d number plane, 2d? Or 2d, 3d? Because the materials of our universe dont have strict number plane like values (1d or 2d, i dont know if the number plane is considered 1d or 2d, I have heard a line is 1d), a graph of greater dimensions then the number line needs to be established to relate physical materials which are 3d (plus the way they change over time), and this is what occurred and why it works?

reply to post by KrzYma


Quack of the week: Rupert Sheldrake

Crothers says black holes don't exist. Well then what are these stars orbiting at the center of our galaxy?
en.wikipedia.org...*

It's pretty good evidence for a black hole so unless Crothers has a good explanation for the orbits of those stars (and he doesn't), he's ignoring this evidence for a black hole.

The last video you posted didn't contain much quackery, but it did contain ignorance. Pollack presents what he says are "Round Earth" ideas from Tesla etc and complains about the fact these ideas haven't been accepted. Well if he thinks he can power his house with Tesla energy extracted from the air, why isn't he doing it? He's just dropping Tesla's name to score points with people who don't understand the science and are easily bamboozled bu a little name dropping. There are some elements of truth in some of his claims but he really loses credibility with this whole idea that science won't accept Tesla's method to extract electricity from the air. What's stopping him if it's such a great idea?

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Arent complex numbers pretty much making a 1d number plane, 2d? Or 2d, 3d? Because the materials of our universe dont have strict number plane like values (1d or 2d, i dont know if the number plane is considered 1d or 2d, I have heard a line is 1d)

Yes as third graders are taught, a line is 1D, a plane is 2D and a volume is 3D, but these concepts are based on real numbers.

Third graders are generally not taught 2D complex planes, where one dimension is real and one is imaginary.

a graph of greater dimensions then the number line needs to be established to relate physical materials which are 3d (plus the way they change over time), and this is what occurred and why it works?

The example I gave is really just a complex plane example, so it's only 1D real plus 1D imaginary. The reason it works has something to do with change over time as you suggest, which the imaginary part helps us model.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


How did that blue one get so close without getting 'sucked in/ripped up'? Is it not possibly they made those orbital turns because of the total surrounding matter away from the center (of stars and planets and debris) and that greater outer unit moving together as a galaxy spinning so when one star is traveling with the pack while the galaxy is moving linearly and rotating, there is the gravitational weight of all rotating masses further from the center then that star perhaps keeping that star from leaving the center area, and forces it to curve back around.


Its only imaginary in the sense of it doesnt exist on the number line, this is all I was trying to say. Its obviously not imaginary, in the sense of being able to be used as a tool of measurement in the real world.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

How did that blue one get so close without getting 'sucked in/ripped up'? Is it not possibly they made those orbital turns because of the total surrounding matter away from the center (of stars and planets and debris) and that greater outer unit moving together as a galaxy spinning so when one star is traveling with the pack while the galaxy is moving linearly and rotating, there is the gravitational weight of all rotating masses further from the center then that star perhaps keeping that star from leaving the center area, and forces it to curve back around.

Its only imaginary in the sense of it doesnt exist on the number line, this is all I was trying to say. Its obviously not imaginary, in the sense of being able to be used as a tool of measurement in the real world.

edit on 15-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

No it just means its moving really fast the faster an object orbits the more elliptical its orbit becomes.But yes eventually it will be eaten so to speak its getting way to close and the cool thing is when it does we should be able to see it.

reply to post by dragonridr


That is a pretty weak dodge Dragonridr.

Answer the question, How do you define force? Back up your claims. I'd really like to see your definition, and how it fits into your claims.

I didn't claim the sun worked through electricity, I claimed that electricity is plasma and fusion is plasma. Try to stick to the reality of what we know.

The sun is made out of plasma.

While we know that gravity exists, we don't know how it works.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Even when it is not subjected to an electric field, does it have electrical properties? And since plasma is composed of electrically charged particles and "An electric field is generated by electrically charged particles" is plasma not always exposed to an electric field?

Well put, I notice you didn't get any response on this established fact.

An interesting point is that a metal plate, per example, is not normally charged because it is conductive, and any charge flows and spreads evenly across the the entire structure. It seeks an electrically neutral state.

A non-conductor, is the opposite, it builds up charges, creates potentials, because it traps ions, they can not flow, so charge builds, most often known as static electricity.

I will look up the properties of a magnet for review when I get the chance, and point out observations on the structure of magnetism when I get a chance.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I would say those orbits are somewhat supportive of a black hole, but the black hole model goes way beyond what we currently know.

The truth is that all numbers are imaginary. Numbers represent a quantity that must be defined, and that quantity is never an exact value, and it is always changing.

poet1b
I would say those orbits are somewhat supportive of a black hole, but the black hole model goes way beyond what we currently know.

If you mean it's widely expected we will eventually come up with a refined model that resolves the singularity issue in a black hole, you're in good company because I hear plenty of people say such refinements are possible with the current model, which is obviously a work in progress if you've seen the flurry of papers on the topic.

The problem with black holes is the difficulty of observing them. We can infer that one with the orbits of those stars, and there is a gas cloud headed for that black hole so if it falls in we'll get some good observations of what happens to the gas cloud as it falls in. It might even give us some measure of the event horizon which would be nice. But I don't see how we'll ever get any measurement of what it's like inside the event horizon. The only way it might happen is if we can communicate faster than light and the no communication theorem says we can't and I'm not expecting it to be falsified, though it would be interesting if it is because then we might be able to make some black hole measurements eventually.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

How did that blue one get so close without getting 'sucked in/ripped up'?

That's part of the reason we think it's orbiting a black hole. The black hole would have a high enough mass in a small enough radius to permit such an orbit. If Crothers was right and black holes didn't exist, then it might do as you suggest because it would be a larger object. For example, if the moon was a black hole, it would have a diameter less than 0.1 millimeter. With such a small diameter we could obviously put objects in much tighter orbits than with its present diameter.

Is it not possibly they made those orbital turns because of the total surrounding matter away from the center (of stars and planets and debris) and that greater outer unit moving together as a galaxy spinning so when one star is traveling with the pack while the galaxy is moving linearly and rotating, there is the gravitational weight of all rotating masses further from the center then that star perhaps keeping that star from leaving the center area, and forces it to curve back around.

I don't see how, but I never tried to model such a thing. I have tried to model an elliptical orbit with the mass at one focal point, and that model does work and these orbits match that model.

reply to post by poet1b


What is force ok ill play its the push or pull on an object from interaction with another object. Are you playing with definitions again we all know you like to do that?