How the sun really works

Want to know how the sun really works? its probably not powered from its core if thats what you think, but attracts its energy remotely fromits local galactic environment, due to its capacitance and its resulting high voltage. Mainstream astronomers hate this idea, as it contradicts a lot of their original asusmptions about where the sun gets its energy from. This has very big implications for solar variability causing global warming, as it would mean that the suns output is dependant on the surrounding amount of charged ions that get attracted to it. Meaning when the solar system moves into an area of the galaxy with plently of particles for the sun to use, it does just that, and becomes hotter and brighter. This is an undebunkable theory, as there is a lot of scientific literature to back this up. See the description of the video in youtube for links to the science behind it.



from the description of the clip;

some peer reviewed evidence;
adsabs.harvard.edu...
www.springerlink.com...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
plasma galaxy formation; www.plasma-universe.com...

and about 30 or more peer reviewed papers here; www.plasma-universe.com...

[edit on 6-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

they didn't even explain the electrical model in depth they just stated the flaws in the nuclear model...

where does the energy come from exactly?
what is at the center of the sun?
why do sun spots occur according to there model?

just a few questions off the top of my head.

Maybe the nuclear model is wrong but I'm not buying the electrical model.

A lengthy refutation can be found here: www.tim-thompson.com...

if the nuclear model is so damn wrong than why can we make so many predictions based off of it?

Not sure if this theory ties into the Plasma Universe or not, but in any case, its all interesting.

Originally posted by totalvigilance
Maybe the nuclear model is wrong but I'm not buying the electrical model.

A lengthy refutation can be found here:www.tim-thompson.com...

Here's a reply to Tim Thompson, This has been around for a couple of years I think, still waiting for his response.
Tim Thompson - A Rebuttal

As for the nuclear model making many predictions, well not really. But their have been many detailed observations and measurements that have been made. It's is only a matter of perspective, All of the data is still valid and is not in question. It all lends support to the electric model if you change your point of view.

I think the most convincing evidence for me is Kristian Birkeland Terella experiments. Many of the solar phenomena are replicated in his experiments including the corona, plasma torus, sunspots, and the so called magnetic reconnection which is better described as a filamental pinch in plasma physics.





More at the link, This was published in 1908, Mr Birkeland first proposed that the aurora was an electrical effect, the scientific community scoffed at him, It took some 70 odd years and many many verifications before it was finally accepted.
www.catastrophism.com...

I've been researching this for about six months on and off, before I knew very little about the sun. I'm a little bit wiser now, some of the data is way out of my league, but common sense supports the electric model and it's backed up by some hundred year old experiments.

The OP is spot on, the influx of charged ions into the solar system is giving the sun some extra kick. The particles are flowing in because of the way the magnetic feilds are currently aligned. This can explain IMO, the increase in noctilucent clouds, the warming of the other planets and moons including Earth, the intense auroral activity of Jupiter and Saturn and may even offer an explanation to the sudden flare up of comet Holmes (although that may be a reach, only my thoughts).

The Universe is electric folks, I bet Tesla would agree.

Originally posted by squiz
More at the link, This was published in 1908, Mr Birkeland first proposed that the aurora was an electrical effect, the scientific community scoffed at him, It took some 70 odd years and many many verifications before it was finally accepted.

And this is why I dont trust science. They seem more interested in maintaining the status quo and their own reputation than in new theories that explains things better.

Wonder how many years we are behind in technology and knowledge because of this behavior.


[edit on 7-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by purplemonkey
where does the energy come from exactly?

The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. This possibility that the Sun may be exernally powered by its galactic environment is the most speculative idea in the ES hypothesis and isalways attacked by critics while they ignore all the other explanatory properties of the ES model. In the Plasma Universe model, these cosmic sized, low-density currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to ask whether these currents remain to power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the sizes of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by that amperage. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower current density and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.

what is at the center of the sun?

That's a difficult question to answer with any certainty, but this isn't where the nuclear reaction is taking place.

The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.

The evidence is in the fact that the highest temperatures produced on Earth are produced by the Z pinch effect. It's also used for fusion experiments.
zpinch.sandia.gov...
www.sandia.gov...

why do sun spots occur according to there model?

In a plasma, both the dimensions and the voltages of the anode tufts depend on the current density at that location (near the anode). The tufts appear and/or disappear, as needed, to maintain a certain required relationship between +ion and electron numbers in the total current. This property of anode tuft plasmas was discovered, quantified, and reported by Irving Langmuir over fifty years ago.
In the Electric Sun model, as with any plasma discharge, tufting disappears wherever the flux of incoming electrons impinging onto a given area of the Sun's surface is not sufficiently strong to require the shielding produced by the plasma double layer. At any such location, the anode tufting collapses and we can see down to the actual anode surface of the Sun. Since there is no arc discharge occurring in these locations, they appear darker than the surrounding area and are termed "sunspots". Of course, if a tremendous amount of energy were being produced in the Sun's interior, the spot should be brighter and hotter than the surrounding photosphere. The fact that sunspots are dark and cool strongly supports the contention that very little, if anything, is going on in the Sun's interior. The center of the spot is called its umbra.

www.electric-cosmos.org...

Originally posted by Copernicus
And this is why I dont trust science. They seem more interested in maintaining the status quo and their own reputation than in new theories that explains things better.
Wonder how many years we are behind in technology and knowledge because of this behavior.

I hear ya Copernicus.
The fact is much of the universe can be explained without the craziness of the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes etc..
And it can be explained with other more verifiable sciences eg Plasma physics and electrical engineering.
The universe is 99.999% plasma, shouldn't plasma physics have more of a say into the workings of the universe?

Although founded on some old experiments and theories from Kristian Birkeland, Haanes Alfven, Ralph Juergons, Velikovsky and others, the Plasma cosmology paradigm is relatively new, but it has already made more successful predictions than the current gravity only based theories of the past hundred years.

It offers a very real opening for a unified theory of everything. Matter is in essence electricity, light and the colour spectrum is because of electricity, biology is now being viewed from an electrical perspective, we only perceive the universe by way of electrical signals to the brain. Your muscles contract and your heart beats because of it. There is suggestive evidence that gravity is a product of electricity. Even volcanism and weather patterns including tornadoes are now being connected to electricity. The evidence for electricity in space is vast and growing.

Originally posted by Copernicus

And this is why I dont trust science. They seem more interested in maintaining the status quo and their own reputation than in new theories that explains things better.

And that's why I don't trust people who don't trust science. They seem more interested in promoting their self delusions than actually finding out the truth.

The ultimate aim of most scientists it to come up with a widely accepted new theory.

However, the peer review process means that only those new theories which really have a chance of being right get widespread promotion.

This isn't to prevent paradigm shifts and cover up new theories, it's to ensure when a new theory is developed it's been properly developed and better matched observation than the previous one.

Thus, my theory that the Moon is just a ball of phlegm from the mouth of a giant mutant space goat has failed to get publication in any prominent scienbtific journal.....


Those who believe that scientists are only interested in maintaining the status quo might like to ask themselves what killed the dinosaurs Now there's an example of a constant stream of paradigm shifting .....

reply to post by Essan


I knew you would disagree with me as usual, Essan...

If you read my post, I said that scientists are holding other scientists back. The peer review process you speak of sounds very good in theory, but in practice, I think that even if a new theory describes things better than the old one, there is a large interest in keeping the old theory. Simply because you have a lot of people who knows it and agrees with it.

There is always resistance to new knowledge. Trust me, I work as a programmer and it can take a decade before the mainstream go over to a new programming language even when its superior to the old ones. Simply because people know the old one and there is a whole industry working with it.

I know there are differences, but you have to realize there is a invested interest in keeping the status quo within any branch. Its not as simple as you make it out to be... just peer review it and if it fits, it replaces the new theory. It doesnt work that way. Hence it takes 70 years for something to get accepted even though the science was good even when it was introduced 70 years ago.


[edit on 7-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Hi Copernicus, you're probably right in some cases

I suspect some aspects of the 'electric universe' hypothesis is correct and will in time become incorporated into accepted scientific theory. Just as the 'meteorite impact hypothesis'. But it's a case of developing and refining the overall theory rather than scrapping one and replacing it with another - I don't think Einstein and Planck and co were all entirely wrong

Back to the OP - the correct title for this thread would be "How the Sun might really work"

Because I'm pretty sure no-one here knows more that 1% of what the experts know, and certainly that no-one can prove anything

Originally posted by Essan
The ultimate aim of most scientists it to come up with a widely accepted new theory.
However, the peer review process means that only those new theories which really have a chance of being right get widespread promotion.
Those who believe that scientists are only interested in maintaining the status quo might like to ask themselves what killed the dinosaurs

Now there's an example of a constant stream of paradigm shifting .....

Hi Essan, for the most part I'd agree with the above, the dinosaur theory is a good example. However cosmology doesn't seem to abide by the same rules that other sciences adhere too.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

An open letter to the scientific community

It appears that many scientists agree, judging from the support the article has received.

I think a similar argument could be made for evolution IMO. And no I'm not a creationist.

I also agree with your last post, however some of these theories have been around so long they are taken as fact. eg big bang and black holes are a perfect example, there are dozens more though including the nuclear sun.

I think controversial theories invigorate science, others think they hinder it.



[edit on 7-11-2007 by squiz]

To be honest I don't really know much about, nor follow, cosmology and astrophysics. But I do remember over 25 years ago, whilst in the bath one day, coming up with an idea that there was a black hole at the centre of the galaxy. And some years ago, another idea that there have been multiple 'big bangs' occurring in different parts of the universe at different times - explaining why some of the observed universe can be older than the big bang.

Both ideas which have since found some mainstream support

reply to post by ZeuZZ



There is no such thing as an undebunkable theory. In fact undebunkable isn't even a word.

Hmm. I could see a possible unifying theory of some sort based on electricity.

...man, sometimes I wish I *were* an astrophysicist...and a chemist...and...lots of other stuff. But alas.

I do know that Tesla considered electricity as one of the main forces in nature, with gravity and magnetism as well. (I understand there's a fourth force, but I can't figure out what it was he claimed it to be...does anyone know?)

I also know that magnetic fields play an immeasurable role in our solar system, and protect life on earth from otherwise deadly solar radiation. Sunspots themselves are caused by electromagnetic loop distortions, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if electricy (or electrons, and their quirky quantum behaviors) were found to be the key to "how everything works"

/end ramble, not enough coffee yet

"Undebunkable theory"? Haha, someone needs to read the dictionary...on more than one account.

So where do the heavy elements come from in this theory, and how does it explain the many different types of star deaths (supernovas, black holes, neutron stars, etc...)?

[edit on 7-11-2007 by evanmontegarde]

There are some interesting articles on the electric univerese at www.holoscience.com.

I think the fusion theory has been busted many times over, yet it's still the most current theory, only for the lack of having a better theory.

Well, there is another theory which was the leading theory before the fusion theory called the "gravitational collapse theory" it seems to explain more then the fusion theory...there only one problem with it. It puts a time limit on how old the sun is, about 22 million years at very latest.

So with the big bang crap... or I ment theory it doesn't fit in the billions of year time frame. But then again I could go on and on about great theories that get put to side because they don't support a stupid theory.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by ebe51]

reply to post by squiz


thank you for clearing up those questions....

i wonder if this effect can be related to global warming

and i wonder if humans can harness the same power.