The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

I posted this in another thread, but I feel it is deserving of its own post.

When confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the Sun is powered externally by currents of charged plasma, rather than internally through fusion reactions, people often hand wave and bring up this article posted by Tim Thompson that supposedly refutes the electric sun hypothesis.

This supposed refutation is filled with ad homs, misrepresentations, strawmen, and all other manner of disingenuous pseudo-skepticism. It has been thoroughly refuted by Scott here.

The statist clan running the BAUT forums also likes to post mix’n match grab bag pseudo-skeptic claims declaring that the electric sun model has been refuted. Scott has also issued rejoinders to their claims which can be found here.

There have been numerous researchers and Nobel laureates in plasma physics that have published works showing how an electrically externally powered sun can well explain observations. These are not crack pots, they are visionaries. Alfven himself wrote papers and books in support of the theory.

Recent astronomical observations bring up more questions rather than answers, all well explained by an electric sun model.

The vast majority of exo-planets found are gas giants larger than Jupiter in orbits closer to their parent star than the Earth is to the Sun. Standard models of star formation preclude this from happening, certainly not as often as is observed.

Brown dwarf stars that are far too cool for nuclear fusion to take place are known to exist in massive numbers. Standard theory has no plausible explanation for these objects while they are expected and well explained in an electric model.

Gravitational simulations of dust clouds show standard theories of planet formation and star formation to be a joke. Dust clouds do not collapse into stars or planets based on the known behaviors of dust in a zero gravity vacuum. This fact can not be ignored any longer. As well as a host of other issues described in this video.

More information on the electric sun models in question and how it works can be found here.

A well produced video tutorial on electric cosmology can be found here.

Further reading can be found here, and a host of links to electric cosmology sites can be found here.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Are you saying this electric Sun is just the Sun, or do you believe the whole Electric Universe theory?

I have recently seen this video and it makes a lot of since to me.
Thunderbolts of the gods video.google.com...#

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Are you saying this electric Sun is just the Sun, or do you believe the whole Electric Universe theory?

I have recently seen this video and it makes a lot of since to me.
Thunderbolts of the gods video.google.com...#

An electric sun necessarily means an electric universe.

You can't have one without the other.

The whole electric universe theory is highly interesting. I'd like to see alot more money thrown into this sort of research.

And IMO there is also the most exciting aspect of a electric universe. The possibility of tapping into that electricity for us to use for free.

Originally posted by grey580
The possibility of tapping into that electricity for us to use for free.

Which is precisely why no money will be put into this research.

The last thing the fascists running our government and public science want is an unlimited abundant cheap source of energy.

Energy companies and banks run our science programs as is evidenced by the climategate emails declaring Dutch Royal Shell to be a "strategic partner" of the CRU as well as Excellon, BP, and Enron.

Al Gore colluded with Enron in order to come up with the carbon tax scheme in order to put their primary competition, coal, out of business.

The whole thing is a massive fascist fraud.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You can't have one without the other.

I see, Thank You.

I have a big interest in this model because I believe it can help us understand Anti-Gravity or at least something that simulates anti-gravity in the form of floating objects through strong magnetic fields.

This science can go already but I believe there may be a practical way to do this through understanding the relationship between gravity and electricity and this is the way Ed Leedskalnin moved his big blocks at Coral Castle.

Oh no, not again... You can dub the youtube video with ANY amount of new age music, but that doesn't make this silliness into science.

There is simply no evidence of charge influx into the Sun. Interestingly, there is ample evidence of solar wind emanating from the Sun.




[edit on 16-12-2009 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh no, not again... You can dub the youtube video with ANY amount of new age music, but that doesn't make this silliness into science.

There is simply no evidence of proton influx into the Sun. Interestingly, there is ample evidence of solar wind emanating from the Sun.

The solar wind is an outflow of charged particles, those particles and the fact that they accelerate with increasing speed as distance from the sun increases are not explained in the standard model at all.

But thanks for bringing it up, because its one more nail in the coffin for the standard model.

As for your proton influx claims, the satellite readings in question never looked at the polar influx over the sun, which is where the currents would be arriving from. Of course, our own Earth exhibits such effects. We call the effects of these currents the aurora.

You can't have influx of charge into the Sun, while the solar wind is present. And I thought that was an easy thing to get...

reply to post by mnemeth1


Sorry, but all of your links keep going to something that references "Thunderbolts" from the sky, or some such.

There are many links in your post, but most just copy each other, and provide nothing substantive.

This is my impression after first glance.

And, I am not impressed.

This is, as you rightly state, "wacky"....or maybe 'fringe' is a nicer way to say it. It just does NOT take into account very, very many established tenets of science, too many to go into here. It is understood that various scientific disciplines must overlap when studying such things as stars, their formation, their life cycles, etc. AND also one has to look at their mass, and gravitational effects, and on and on...

I wish you luck with your "belief", but...hard peer-reviewed experimentally duplicated and stringently studied science compared to a 'fringe' notion with little evident means of support?

Eh....I'll stick with science.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Great refutation.

Lots of facts.

You don't happen to work for the CRU do you?

reply to post by mnemeth1

We call the effects of these currents the aurora.

And in that one fell swoop indicate a lack of understanding as to why the aurora exist, on earth, and what is causing them.

(Hint: Although you probably will refuse to believe the 'science', but planets that lack a strong magnetic field, due to their inner cores' activity, will not produce the aurora like we see on Earth).

Thanks for this OP, this is the first time I've actually looked at the electric universe theory, but this seams to make a long more sense then the fusion model.

I'm going to have to look into this more in depth, but from initial thoughts this would explain gravity, the magnetic field of earth and the way the planets revolve around the sun, it is all electricity and magnetism.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You can't have influx of charge into the Sun, while the solar wind is present. And I thought that was an easy thing to get...

Yeah, its called current arrives at the poles and moves outwards at the torus, then continues outwards to the boundary of the heliosphere.

The heliosphere is a classic plasma double layer boundary region between the Sun, which acts as a high voltage positive anode, and the galactic medium.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I'm going to have to look into this more in depth, but from initial thoughts this would explain gravity

Yes, you'll need lots more "depth" to explain how an electric current supposedly flowing into the Sun (which is an impossibility) explains gravity.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You can dub the youtube video with ANY amount of new age music, but that doesn't make this silliness into science.

Science is a philosophy. People formulate theories and try to see if they can be validated (Not Proven mind you) by observation.

Some of Newtons "laws" fall apart in the face of Relativity. Some Relativity falls apart in the face of Quantum Physics. String theory deals with strings that are so small there is no way at present we can see them to observe their behavior.. yet.. it is considered Science.

Just as Newtons laws are not absolute, and Relativity is not absolute to say that the Electric Model is not science just because if fails to explain everything in your opinion is foolishness.

By your own argument, If you believe this, then you must believe that Newton Laws and Relativity are fairy tales also.

The Electric Model IS valid science because the theory does make many observations that seem to be plausible and in fact brings understanding to aspects of cosmology that the present accepted models fail to account for.

reply to post by mnemeth1


What the heck is the CRU?

No, son....I just have read a LOT of science books, scientific magazine articles, have watched a lot of well put together documentaries based on REAL science, and have also been a long time reader of good, "hard" science fiction, produced by people who have backgrounds in real science, and use that knowledge to postulate very many amazing concepts....in the realm of SF that is the point, to think beyond what we know. BUT, there are laws....irrefutable, immutable laws.

As Star Trek's Montgomery Scott once complained to Captain Kirk: "Ye canno' change the laws o' physics!"

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

We call the effects of these currents the aurora.

And in that one fell swoop indicate a lack of understanding as to why the aurora exist, on earth, and what is causing them.

(Hint: Although you probably will refuse to believe the 'science', but planets that lack a strong magnetic field, due to their inner cores' activity, will not produce the aurora like we see on Earth).

I believe you are the one that shows misunderstanding.

Go google plasma double layers and parallel electric currents along with aurora and take a look at the results.

Even standard theory accepts that the aurora are powered by parallel electric currents in the surrounding plasma, they just think outbursts are caused by a fictitious form of magnetic reconnection, which of course, hasn't been replicated by experimentation and is more readily explained by an electric sun hypothesis.





[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You can't have influx of charge into the Sun, while the solar wind is present. And I thought that was an easy thing to get...

Yeah, its called current arrives at the poles and moves outwards at the torus, then continues outwards to the boundary of the heliosphere.

Oh please, if the energy was released locally at the poles (according to the simple-minded "logic" of EU proponents in the video on your site), we'd see such localization right from here on Earth, which we don't... You can't be serious.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

What the heck is the CRU?

No, son....I just have read a LOT of science books, scientific magazine articles, have watched a lot of well put together documentaries based on REAL science, and have also been a long time reader of good, "hard" science fiction, produced by people who have backgrounds in real science, and use that knowledge to postulate very many amazing concepts....in the realm of SF that is the point, to think beyond what we know. BUT, there are laws....irrefutable, immutable laws.

As Star Trek's Montgomery Scott once complained to Captain Kirk: "Ye canno' change the laws o' physics!"

If I got in to a debate with a Pastor about the existence of God, he would claim that he read dozens of books on the subject and spent 4 years of post graduate study which proves God exists.

Making such claims does nothing to support your argument.