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.
Source
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth, despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger, than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements.
Originally posted by NeedToNo
However, I canoot help but feel underwhelmed by the untenable position of some of the pseudo-skeptics in this thread who in the very least appear to be uninformed of these new discoveries, and at worst suffer from the Semmelweis reflex(outright unexamined rejection of new paradigm).
www.the-electric-universe.info...
The fantastic development of astronomy shows daily new filamentary bodies but not their model. Recently, the spacecraft Cassini sent frames about the beautiful fountains ejected by Enceladus of Saturn (Fig.1). If the electric model of these fountains will be confirmed, then other filamentary bodies can easier be explained, too.
The Apollo 17-team made more sketches about similar fountains on the Moon already in 1972. These Moon-fountains were ejected also at the terminator (which lies between day and night as here in Fig.1). Apollo 17 even transported a special instrument to measure the electric charge of the ejected dust of the Moon fountains. After this, no mention of this process was found [1]. The spacecraft Cassini can also measure electric charges of dust as low as 10-15 coulombs [2]. Fig. 1 gives the impression of terrestrial volcanic geysers in which water flows into deep hot cavities and is ejected periodically.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Rejoice, for your prayer is answert.
Very low density (dozen particle per cubic inch), low cross section, and relative speed of the two particles that still might experience a collision (we are talking keV energy range, and each kind of particle has its own spectrum).
Originally posted by Long Lance
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Rejoice, for your prayer is answert.
Very low density (dozen particle per cubic inch), low cross section, and relative speed of the two particles that still might experience a collision (we are talking keV energy range, and each kind of particle has its own spectrum).
sounds benign, but it really isn't, because of a feature called electrostatic attraction
what i don't get is why taking electric phenomnea in space into account is such a problem to some people.
Originally posted by Bluess
reply to post by buddhasystem
The funny thing is, that you have no problem accepting the lacks and flaws of your favored "Big Bang" model.
You always say things like "we simply dont know yet", but when an aposing, well documented theory , gives you the same "we simply dont know yet", it suddently makes the theory fall apart?
Where is the "dark matter", where is the proof for "inflation", where is the "dark energy"?
Cant we keep an open mind about "EU", just like we have for "BB" the past half decade?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
No offense, but if you understanding of physics is limited to realization that there is electrostatic attraction..
That fact that you don't get it is the least of your problems. Amazingly, there is a correlation between how many physics problems (including in the area of electromagnetism, the crux of the "theory" you are trying to defend) a person has solved in his life, and how likely they are to have interest in this "theory". And that is a strongly negative correlation, my friend.
Buddhasystem
I made it very clear that we know already enough to conclude that this pseudo-theory of EU is bunk. It's one thing to not know something, and quite another to know that there are observed phenomena that aren't compatible with the "electric sun".
Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Somehow I just don't think the 'we' in the group you speak of has enough evidence to conclude anything entirely about this theory.
Instead of arrogantly assuming/presuming something to suit your ego, why not contribute by outlining these so called observed phenomena in specificity that aren't compatible with the "electric sun" theory and letting us know your angle.
When you know how the universe works 100% then you can bleet arrogant flatulence to your hearts content, until then, why not contribute to the discussion.
In all seriousness, I am curious about these incompatible phenomena. Whats the biggest one from your perspective?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
I made it very clear that we know already enough to conclude that this pseudo-theory of EU is bunk. It's one thing to not know something, and quite another to know that there are observed phenomena that aren't compatible with the "electric sun". [.....]
I haven't heard answers to most primitive questions stemming from the "electric star" pseudo-theory.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
a) the electron wind blowing towards the Sun according to that "theory" (non-existent in reality)
b) amazingly constant potential of the alleged charged sphere around the Sun, despite all those electrons flowing in
c) the undefined and mysterious source of the electrons that are flowing into the Sun according to that moronic "theory"
d) undefined sources of energy in the Sun, in that "theory"
e) apparently nonexistent jets of current emitted from the poles of the Sun (which should be there according to that laughable concoction)
Previously in this book the reader has been introduced to the idea of a plasma, and to a solar plasma called the solar wind.
Because both the electrons and ions are free to move in a plasma, a wide variety of waves can exist in the solar wind. These waves are called plasma waves. Since the early days of the discovery of the solar wind it has been thought plasma waves play an important role in controlling dynamical processes in the solar wind.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
What we seem to have here is either a refusal to look at the evidence i have put forward, or outright denial of it.
If I could understand what your reasons are we could discuss it in an open way, but the problem is I dont even know what your issue with it is
From my viewpoint you are rejecting it because you started arguing against it before you knew all of the details about it
Maybe the title given to this model is what puts you off?
but your level of dogmaitism is beginning to get to me.
1) the fact that the suns magnetic field is large and constant implies that the electric currents that generate it are also large and constantly flowing
2) The fact that flares are known to the electrical, and so this raises questions about what extent electricty plays in the rest of the sun, and why the surface seems to be so electrically active
3) Current theories advocate twenty completely different models for various coronal sesmological anomalies, they cant all be right.
4) The violation of the inverse square law for radiation due to the hot corona
5) Why there is a corona at all
6) The origin of the filamentary structure of the corona
7) The fact that the 'magnetic reconnection' theory violates maxwells equations and has never been tested
8) As this is the case, the suns magnetic and electric field should be connected to the surrounding stars fields
9) Particle acceleration observed above the photosphere can be explained by the sun producing an electric field
10) The recent observations of 'backstreaming electrons' travelling the completely opposite direction than the standard model states
11) The fact that this process is known on earth when positive ions are emitted from a surface, which exactly what the ES models says is happening on the suns surface
13) Nuclear fusion thought to be happening in the sun has never been achieved in any tests
14) Magnetic confinement and Z-pinch fusion has been achieved using high Amp electrical current input
15) Birkelands experiments seem to mirror nearly exactly many characteristics of the sun using an electrically charged anode
16) Supercomputer models carried out by highly competent scientists have perfectly mirrored the morphology of galaxies which are kept in shape by EM connections in space plasma between stars, not gravity.
17) The equations to calculate the current density, the voltages needed, and all the other areas can be easily worked out using standard already existing equations of EM and plasma theory.
18) Electric current filaments have been found in the interstellar medium and published in various journals, implying that there in current flow into and out of the solar system
20) Since all planets have millions of amperes of electricity entering their poles, logically you could conclude the same about the sun.
And in response to all this, you largely ignore what i have said, instead saying that because I have no detailed explanation for neutrino yields the whole thing is wrong. A theory that explains the most phenomena and disregards the least evidence is the more powerful theory. Put another way, since the standard model disregards much of these problems and puts them off as small inconsequential problems to be answered in the near future, whilst in contrast the electric model has answers to all of these problems, the electric model is the better theory.
And your main reason for dismissing it doesn't even hold that much water anyway. Neutrino's are not unique to nuclear fusion, they are produced by all manner of particle interactions.
Most of the time when a particle annihilates with its anti particle they produce electron neutrino's
Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's so freaking deep I am about to cry. Field is large, currents are flowing. Amen.
Well, currents are everywhere, as you so astutely pointed out. Flares are known to be complex phenomena involving the magnetic field as well. I see that your statement is lacking in substance.
That might be, but I wager none of these features as royal a set of impossibilities as the "theory" you are trying so hard to push here.
Well there might be other energy transfer mechanisms, that doesn't bother me a bit.
Sheesh, if you have a superhot object riddled with currents and magnetic fields (all part of "mainstream science" you love to hate), would you not expect matter to be ejected?
Well I think everybody and their grandma knows Sun has magnetic field. Your point?
From where I look, you don't seem to have solved the Maxwell's equations very many times, and you don't seem to possess the command of mathematical apparatus needed to qualify statements like that.
Well I don't think anybody argues with that. Given the infinitesimal magnitude of fields stretching multiple light year distances, I don't see why you get so excited. Here's the kicker: even as we speak, the star known as Sirius is pulling YOU towards it with tis gravity. Please feel free to speculate on how differently your diet coke will bubble in that circumstance.
Or a thousand little gnomes pushing them.
Did you bother to read those papers???
Positive ions exist in a battery in your watch, does this mean the Sun is made by Duracell?
??? The theory of fusion is somewhat well developed and we have working nuclear weapons based on it, as well as experimental studies of fusion in the lab, which of course don't reach unity at this point (don't reproduce energy needed due to inefficiencies in recovery).
Please don't try to impress me with buzzwords here, because you aren't capable of calculating the yields in your "model" of the Sun (which is crap).
Well that's just filament structure of the current which is cool but really nothing to write home about.
There are many similarities in nature that have nothing to do with whether the underlying theory was right or not. Today, my little daughter decided to throw up (happens in kids) and the spot on the floor I had to clean looked tremendously like a galaxy. I can assure you there is not strong electric fields in our house.
Don't see content in this one.
Again, magnetic focussing of currents is cool but not a new theory of any kind.
????? Planets like Earth are bombarded BY THE SUN. Do you elect to ignore that simple fact?
What bullshwat. Enough of that hapless meandering on your part... Signing off. You don't know physics and you presume to expostulate a new grand theory? Pathetic.
Originally posted by ZeuZZ
b) This is the part you seem to not get. The flow of charge overall cancels out to retain the voltage of the sun. It is not building up charge, as at any given time the outflow of positive = the inflow of negative. This means that its net charge stays relatively constant
Originally posted by Long Lance
this is the real core problem of the electric star theory, you say that you can balance a lost + charge by adding a - charge, which is wrong on its face. why even bother with the distinction anyway if you could swap them like that ?
in order to keep the proposal viable, they'll now have to find a way to close the electric circuit, otherwise, the star would have to charge up until equilibrium is reached - at which point it goes out.
PS: maybe that's where all the BB theory's 'dark matter' comes from ?
Originally posted by lostinspace
In my opinion the Electric Sun Theory is a brilliant concept.
It reminds me of the relationship certain kinds of plants and animals have with each other, where one rewards the other for survival.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
You are right. The moronic nature of EU is not in any particular part of it, but in its composition.
It's a horrid mosaic made of individual facets that make sense in and by themselves. For example, it's very likely that the magnetic field of the Sun is more complex than was anticipated and that because of that, there are "filaments" of current reaching Earth. Fine.
Can there be nucelar fusion in the upper layers of the Sun? Sure there can! Except the much lower density won't allow for enough energy to be produced.
Etc etc etc. Combined with the fact that armchair scientists will never be able to create a real model of a star based on there "electrifying" ideas, such model can not be argued against, because there is not basis for comparison.
Just like in case of solar neutrino -- until some EU proponent will calculate the projected neutrino rates and compare with experimental data, the continued talk of the EU supremacy remains very, very, very cheap.
quite an idiotic statement. Abdus Salam sure was not white, and neither were any of Nobel Prize winners of Chinese descent.
I worked for one of them. I'm not sure you realize that many prominent scientists are of Jewish heritage. Your racially loaded claim is both silly and mean.
Speak for yourlsef, will ya.
Paranoia.
Oh I see. On my part, I have a great deal of contempt for those whose strife to feel important and smart drives them to making startling claims
about how science is an evil cabal and how they,
on the other hand, can explain all the mysteries of Universe using something that's comprehensible to them: a little magnet, a capacitor and a dynamo.