The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

Energy arrives at the poles of the Sun, then flows outward from the torus to the boundary of the heliosphere.

We do see evidence of this, as the energy for Earth's auroras arrive at the poles. We also see evidence that this energy flows back out along Earth's torus, which we call the Van Allen belt.

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

This is Not true. One of the links has a clip from the movie Thunderbolt of the Gods and another page mention the movie. Th rest of the link are all different.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


OK..fine.

Then I suggest people go to the first link, and read Tim Thompson's article.

AS TO "Thunderbolts from the Sky"?? Sounds like a good name for a rock band, but that's about it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

OK..fine.

Then I suggest people go to the first link, and read Tim Thompson's article.

AS TO "Thunderbolts from the Sky"?? Sounds like a good name for a rock band, but that's about it.

I concur, just be sure to read Scott's rejoinder next, which smashes Thompson's ad homs and misrepresentations to pieces.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.

Please don't engage in demagoguery. We are talking about theories and experimental facts, and that does not include act of blind faith... Wait, maybe it does, as the electric sun might fall in that category...

Thanks for the reference to the BAUT forum, looks like somebody got creamed there... Good reading...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.

Please don't engage in demagoguery. We are talking about theories and experimental facts, and that does not include act of blind faith... Wait, maybe it does, as the electric sun might fall in that category...

Thanks for the reference to the BAUT forum, looks like somebody got creamed there... Good reading...

Blind faith is believing in "magnetic dynamos" and "magnetic reconnection".

The electric hypothesis is not the one using fictitious unproven physics.

I accuse the standard theorists of engaging in demagoguery.




[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Energy arrives at the poles of the Sun, then flows outward from the torus to the boundary of the heliosphere.

We do see evidence of this, as the energy for Earth's auroras arrive at the poles. We also see evidence that this energy flows back out along Earth's torus, which we call the Van Allen belt.

The amount of energy release on Earth's poles in aurora events is quite small. It doesn't power Earth. In case of Sun, you just can't explain how these mammoth amounts of energy can flow into the Sun, highly localized, and not manifest themselves... Where are the hot spots on the poles? Until you find an answer, feel free to shut down this pseudo-science thread.

reply to post by weedwhacker


But,but, those people cant be trusted WackerBoy, they make their own 'facts' like others I know.

You should atleast watch the Thunderbolt, it is very interesting,Im 50 minutes out in it now, lots of cool stuff there, and again, they say the Standard Astronomers really do not Want to go into the topic, even more reason for me to believe it, cause the 'standard' of things seem to be have been DeBunked.....

[edit on 16/12/2009 by ChemBreather]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Energy arrives at the poles of the Sun, then flows outward from the torus to the boundary of the heliosphere.

We do see evidence of this, as the energy for Earth's auroras arrive at the poles. We also see evidence that this energy flows back out along Earth's torus, which we call the Van Allen belt.

The amount of energy release on Earth's poles in aurora events is quite small. It doesn't power Earth. In case of Sun, you just can't explain how these mammoth amounts of energy can flow into the Sun, highly localized, and not manifest themselves... Where are the hot spots on the poles? Until you find an answer, feel free to shut down this pseudo-science thread.

Yeah, actually I can.

Oh, and if you'd like an image of these inflows visibly manifesting due to the current load, here's a good example:







[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

You know.. a lot of things science claims as facts, are later found not to be so factual.. as in the case with the Newton-Relativity thing I mentioned on page 1.

To blindly hold on to something in science being so factual that it is a "law" and can never be broken or changed or explained another way is silly, as this has happened over and over again throughout the history of science.

If you choose not to believe a theory, that's just fine, but no one has a right to say a theory is not scientific.

Okay, I finally figured out how to spell "Tokamak" so I can finally start reading up on that. Now what I noticed is that in order for them to contain the plasma they have a magnetic field that allows them to do that, or else it would melt everything it touches because it is so hot. So if the sun is indeed a fusion reaction what creates it's magnetic field? If this was the case there would be no need to create an artificial magnetic field to contain the plasma in the fusion reactor.

Now we know antimatter exists as it has been observed. So that doubles every particle that we have, for every neutron, proton, and electron there is an opposite of those that exists, so you would have a anti-neutron, anti-proton, and anti-electron. So if you say for instance the fabric of space is actually made up of this antimatter than it would flow through everything. There goes the impenetrable sun theory.

I'm still working on the rest.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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!"

Irrefutable and immutable until refuted and muted like so many scientific laws of the past.

Scientific theories and laws not only do change, but they have to as new knowledge is aquired, or it just becomes religion.

Neither watching tv nor reading non-fiction a scientist makes.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


The Tokamak is one more massive waste of our tax dollars that scientists promote, knowing full well that it will never be a viable form of fusion energy.

The reasons for this are simple, as you mentioned, they have to confine the plasma with magnetic fields to keep it from melting the walls of the reactor.

Such a feat is virtually impossible for any length of time and they know it. The energy required to maintain the field is necessarily huge making it enormously inefficient, as well as the fact the plasma and magnetic fields fluctuate, making it enormously difficult to contain.

A plasma cosmologist, Eric Lerner, has proposed a simple solution to this problem that uses the plasmas own magnetic field to make it confine itself, rather than using externally powered magnetic fields to confine it.

Of course, his idea has been ridiculed and scorned by the establishment - probably because it might actually work. Which, as I stated earlier, is a big no-no.

You can watch him give a Google Tech Talk on subject here.

His plasma fusion research site is here.

His plasma cosmology site is here.




[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

The sun is held together and under pressure by its own gravity.
1.98892 E 30 kilograms creates a lot of gravity.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

The sun is held together and under pressure by its own gravity.
1.98892 E 30 kilograms creates a lot of gravity.

Tell me oh wise one.

What is the effective gravity at the center of the Sun?

If I climbed into the middle of the Sun, and I weigh 200 lbs on the surface of the Earth, how much would I weigh in the middle of the Sun?



[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


We should firstly understand the difference between a theory and an hypothesis.

You can look up their definitions yourselves, no need to waste time and space here.

But, consider this: Once you look it up, then it becomes apparent that the "Electric Universe" concept, even as an imagined model to attempt to describe something, is no more than a mere hypothesis. It has no resemblance to actual theories, as defined.

Also, the analogy to Newton and Relativity and Quantum theory is flawed.

Each has its own merits, and can stands alone within its own paradigm and field of study. Hard to explain, but just read about it, or find some science documentaries on video.

Ultimately, the "Holy Grail" of science today, in the realm of investigating 'Life, the Universe and Everything' (to borrow from Douglas Adams' book title) is the so-called "TOE" (Theory of Everything).

It is the search for the reconciliation of all the forces in nature. It is thought that all forces sprang at once from the "Big Bang", and diverged from there to what we observe and measure today. In other words, higher and higher energy levels, and matter states of energy, lead to the more fundamental nature of matter, and what it was composed of, what comprised it, and how it acted in the 'beginning'. BUT, even the 'Bang' is, on some levels, still in the hypothesis stage of development. Even so, it is still a far more viable, and I say, convincing model to use than this "EU" thing.

About those forces: I'll let you ponder this problem. Why is gravity so weak? Compared to, say....magnetism? About magnetism, BTW...that's probably why someone started up this "EU" stuff in the first place, brainstorming, perhaps, after a few too many lagers (or something).

I refer, of course, to the fact that we call it the 'electromagnetic' spectrum when we discuss everything involving, say, magnetism to X-rays.

It is, therefore, overly simplistic to think that this "EU" concept has merit. But, it seems that is what some want --- an easier concept to think about, instead of having to take the harder road, into quantum science, super strings studies, singularities....etc. Oh, the mathematics of it all, can make one's head ache.
_____________________________________________________________

edit @ Chembreather:

Originally posted by Chembreather
. . .those people cant be trusted WackerBoy. . .

You are being given ONE pass on that remark, because I am aware that English is not your primary language.





[edit on 16 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

I think this Electric Universe theory is very very intriguing and compelling. The standard model (fusion model) in my understanding is relativelly new (50 yrs?) and don't explain alot of things.
So, how can it be immutable? irrefutable? Phleaaase.

The EU theory holds great validity IMHO, although I haven't looked into it properlly yet, it would help explain a lot of things.

Like this one.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Who cares. You wouldn't "weigh" anything but you would have the pressure of 695,500 kilometers of material pressing on you from every direction. That would be about 3 e 11 atmospheres. I don't think you would find it comfortable.

I was just reading some kind of refutation of the electric model on another site

www.tim-thompson.com...

He says something about fusion has to happen in the core where energy and density are both high enough to cause it. He is refuting some electric theory proponent who says some fusion may happen on the surface.

It's lame because fusion requires temperature & density both. We know the temperature at the solar photosphere, about 6000 Kelvins. And, we know the temperature in the corona, 1,000,000 to perhaps 5,000,000 Kelvins. But the photosphere is too cold, and the corona far too sparsely populated, to promote enough fusion reactions to cover the one half expected neutrino flux.

Firstly I'm not so sure about the sparsely populated part. Maybe, maybe not. I guess my question has more to do with the temperature differences. While it may only take a temp of 6000K for fusion to occur in the photosphere supposedly, the temperature of the corona, 200x that of the photosphere at a minimum, doesnt give particles enough energy to fuse when they smack into each other? Wouldnt the magnetic field of the sun actually group particles more closely than "sparsely populated" anyway? This how the LHC and virtually every other collider work is it not?

To help put this in perspective

1 million kelvin = 1 799 540.33 degrees Fahrenheit
5 million kelvin = 8 999 540.33 degrees Fahrenheit

There is a huge amount of energy in the corona being transferrred to particles there.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by watcher73]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT, even the 'Bang' is, on some levels, still in the hypothesis stage of development. Even so, it is still a far more viable, and I say, convincing model to use than this "EU" thing.

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

The big bang was created by a catholic priest in a bid to tie science and theology together.

I offer a massive amount of evidence calling it into question here.

-quasar magnitude does not correlate to their redshift
-quasar clustering is highly improbable; it does not support the big bang.
-quasar redshifts are observed to be quantized
-high redshift objects appear connected to low redshift objects
-redshift can be well explained by the Wolf effect
-gravitationally lensed objects do not correlate to proposed theories; numerous "lensed" objects have been observed to change in intensity, move around, and are point like.
-halo effects that appear to be lens like can be explained by magnetic field phenomena.
-fully formed galaxies are observed as far as we can see, meaning they must have been fully formed just a few hundred million years after the supposed big bang.
-quasar luminosity means some of them are supposedly outputting the equivalent energy of hundreds of millions of milky way galaxies combined (ridiculous).

In fact the list goes on and on and on and on.