Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Im going to say you never know where science will lead you maybe someday they will power a toaster on vacuum energy. We could discover an unknown particle we can harness through causing a symmetry break who knows. But ultimately as we learn more about the universe and find out what truly are the guiding rules in the universe in particle physics nothing may be impossible. But i figure thats thousands of years away and more than likely with the trouble were causing ourselves may not be here.My concern is as science advances if our behaviors dont change we can easily destroy our selves trust me a nuclear blast is not the worst thing science can invent.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah, and thats kinda what makes me stop and think, huh? Sometimes it is like say, a football player, he plays a game and his team wins thanks to something he did (scored a goal, or whatever). He comes off of the pitch and is confronted by the media. He looks out there and says, Ill answer some questions, expecting to be asked about the event that just transpired.

Instead someone asks him about what happened in a Cricket game yesterday.

Its kinda like... wait what?

My post wasn't really the scream to attention it sounded like only to highlight how interesting it is for me to see how people behave. There are some excellent threads here, where good discussion occurs and people learn a little bit. What troubles me a little bit is when a subject which is incredibly complicated is discussed and treated like it is kindergarden level. Along with extremely over used stances on science such as

The powers that be will not allow it
The people working on it will be suppressed
The only people interested in it are the ones making money
Scientists are making loads of money from this
Did you go there and do it yourself? Then how do you know. HA you dont know anything.
Anti-gravity has been proven, UFOs are obviously alien space craft.
Quantum computers are going revolutionize computing, if we had one in the house it would be a million times faster than PCs today
You are part of the suppression
I am going to take your words and argue on semantics until you give up, then I will claim victory, I am right and you are wrong.

Science today at this very moment is trying to achieve some amazing things. I feel a little bit stunned by the amount of arrogance displayed by those who know so little of the frontiers of science, yet feel like they are experts. I am by no means an expert in all scientific fields, I keep my posts to mainly physics related things. Now that is by no means saying I believe people should not talk about these things and discuss them or have interest. I think its really fantastic that so many questions get asked. But all to many times people just flat out refuse to actually learn, put in the time to figure things out and are never willing to say "Oh yeah I was wrong."

Scientists do it all the time, we start off most of our sentences when asked difficult questions (or finish them with) "We really don't know"


On the impossible becoming possible, thats also one of those funny things and problems with peoples logic, letting fantasy take command over logic. Iv seen several threads about the warp drive thing, along with other FTL things.

It typically involves having lots of a substance that is not known to exist or at this moment does not exist. Then statements are made like "Oh we already have this running" or "Ha told you it was possible!" it is possible, only if you ignore the 5 impossible things admitted in the talk.

Now, similar to the thread on anti-gravity, the other issue is discussion of a single experimental result that involves 1 experimental setup. The most interesting statement made in one paper was that the observed effect was very small and the lift or gravity reduction experienced could have been caused by many things and that the result could be an experimental error. This gets ignored and people stamp it as proof. Not because it is proof, but simply because they want it so much.

Heard the other day that the gravitational waves result might be called into question. Iv not seen paper or any talks on it yet, but its extremely interesting. I'm interested to see what the argument is. Now, if i was a scientist how many ATS-ers think scientists are... I would simply say oh, the gravitational waves result is 100% correct and any debate is unwanted...
Reality is that the jury is not exactly sold on that result

I already posted about the plasma ribbon. June - 2010

It was a way better looking thread, and without the limiting boundaries that science holding you back.
I really like you to read it. It's a nice read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please feel free to bump it. I'd like that

I've been watching these new discoveries lately, that are all about the expectations made by the cosmologists which failed, and the observed was predicted, by the electric universe. So have I seen a number of occasions where there was an obvious electro magnetic effect was seen, and they could even recreate the same thing in a lab.

So the claims are plenty and logical if you look at it. They present arguments that seem to make sense.

Anyone please tell me that the arguments given by the electric theory that look to be a logical conclusion.

As the EU theory is not oke. I want a good argument that disproves the EU claim on that topic.
Preferably all claims needed to be dis proven.

The reason I ask is because only read that it isn't possible. That the claims are wrong etc.
Please also post the evidence that proof your point


Sint

a reply to: Sinter Klaas
There are two men I know of promoting electric universe:

Wal Thornhill
Don Scott

They don't even agree with each other on some things, and I'm not really sure who else promotes these ideas besides them. If there are others, they may have even more different ideas.

EU is a collection of ideas, but if you want to pick just one idea that's pretty easy to show is false it's the electric sun.

The sun is full of electric and magnetic fields, but the EU "electric sun" idea is that the sun gets it's power from electricity rather than fusion.

1. this would take a huge current to power the sun, and no such huge current has ever been found.
2. To create this huge current the sun is said to have a positive electrical potential of billions of volts, yet negatively charged electrons are streaming away from the sun in the solar wind. I've never seen any rational explanation from Scott or Thornhill on how this can happen. In fact their idea requires that electrons be streaming toward the sun in huge numbers, in the opposite direction from what we observe.
3. The mainstream view that the sun is powered by fusion is supported by neutrino observations. Over a decade ago, these neutrino observations were problematic because they didn't exactly match the mainstream theory, but that problem has since been resolved. The electric universe folks make claims for how neutrinos are produced that have no basis in experiment.

If you want more details, Don Scott wrote a book called "The Electric Sky".
A mainstream scientist wrote a 48 page long paper going over all the problems with that book, the pdf is here:
www.crankastronomy.org...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Science by ‘logical argument’ is easy. It requires little effort. But such science is impotent for it generates no testable predictions with any precision. Claiming that a model says “you will measure a current at location `x’” is nothing if your model can’t tell me a range of data values I can expect. Like creationism and other crank science, the focus of the Electric Universe is on the problems in mainstream science, as a way of deflecting examination of all the larger problems in their own claims.

www.crankastronomy.org...

Perfect description. Astrophysics doesn't explain everything so that means EU is right.

a reply to: Phage
That's a popular technique used by fringe and crank idea promoters, and it's not only used by EU and creationists.
Nassim Haramein used similar arguments. When someone pointed out to him that his calculations of proton mass disagreed with observation by about 40 orders of magnitude, he admitted it and said he was working on that but his theory was still better than mainstream which had the vacuum catastrophe, a mainstream prediction of vacuum energy which is off by over 100 orders of magnitude.

What he failed to recognize however were the numerous other problems his theory created that also disagreed with observation, which made his idea much worse than the mainstream model, and besides his calculations weren't about vacuum energy, they were about the mass of a proton, which unlike vacuum energy is pretty straightforward to measure.

yeh yeh.. you all know exactly what is going on and better

Does Physics Have a Problem?
Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics
Not Even Wrong

A team of scientists studying the x-ray emissions of a so-called neutron star tell us that the existing theoretical models cannot explain what they are seeing. Astronomers say that neutron stars are very small yet massively dense objects that spin at incredibly fast speeds with rotation periods no more than hundreds of seconds and sometimes faster than a dentist drill. However, according to new research, a so-called neutron star has been observed with a rotation period of 5.4 hours, an anomalously slow speed. The neutron star is also unusual in that it is pared to form a binary with a red giant and the magnetic field of the neutron star is incredibly strong. No one has ever seen a neutron star, and they are an inferred entity. Wal Thornhill weighs in with his thoughts regarding the Electric Universe model.

a reply to: KrzYma

You're doing exactly what Phage and Arbitrageur described.

Let's be pragmatic for a change.

What testable predictions doe EU make?
What experiments would be devised to test them?
What are the expected results?
What is the null hypothesis of EU?

you can think whatever you want, I stay to my opinion

a reply to: KrzYma

Do you not believe that answers for these questions are important for establishing scientific legitimacy for the EU hypothesis and moving the conversation forwards?

originally posted by: KrzYma
you can think whatever you want, I stay to my opinion

Now that's good science right there.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

You're doing exactly what Phage and Arbitrageur described.

Let's be pragmatic for a change.

What testable predictions doe EU make?
What experiments would be devised to test them?
What are the expected results?
What is the null hypothesis of EU?

start with this

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: KrzYma
you can think whatever you want, I stay to my opinion

Now that's good science right there.

science ? there is no science in this... why should there be any science in an opinion ?

a reply to: KrzYma

I'm afraid I can't view videos on my mobile. Let me instead simplify my question: what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

I'm afraid I can't view videos on my mobile. Let me instead simplify my question: what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?

NO, the other way around, why standard models are incorrect in explaining

1. periodic cycles of the Sun ( long term and short term cycles)
2. accelerating solar wind
3. sunspots (colder inside as on the surface)
3. liquid structured surface of the Sun (explained in recently shard video)
4. temperature gradient
5. not enough convection
6. missing neutrinos
.
.
.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

I'm afraid I can't view videos on my mobile. Let me instead simplify my question: what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?

But hes claiming tht the observations that are seen show that EU hypothesis is correct. So isnt it non EU hypothesis' duty to prove EU wrong? Because EU is giving lots of examples of why their theory is right, and its mainly based on observation.

a reply to: KrzYma

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that every criticism that you lay at the SM is correct. None of this has any bearing on EU, though. It's like the old creationist false dichotomy where they think that if they can falsify evolution, that would make creationism be true and scientifically valid. But that's not how science works. You still need to provide a falsifiable hypothesis than you can test regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of the current model you're trying to supplant.

So again, I have to ask, how is EU falsifiable? What observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?

a reply to: ImaFungi

It's a very simple question so i'm not sure why it's going back and forth like this without an answer: what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect? The onus is on the proponent to provide this.

Let me give you an example: if evolution was incorrect, we would expect to see no correlation between evolutionary complexity and time in the fossil record. See? That's a testable observation that would refute evolution.

If you can't posit what observations would falsify your hypothesis, it's not scientific. That is to say, if there's no testable criteria you could envision that would demonstrate that your hypothesis is wrong, there's no way to test if it's valid.

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: KrzYma

I'm afraid I can't view videos on my mobile. Let me instead simplify my question: what observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was incorrect?

NO, the other way around, why standard models are incorrect in explaining

1. periodic cycles of the Sun ( long term and short term cycles)

Well now that you mention it were becoming less convinced of a solar cycle existing looks like the it merely fluctuates. See they thought the cycle was regular which was hard to explain why it was so uniform turns out its not. It can average anywhere from 8 to 14 years as we've observed but no reason to believe it cant be shorter or longer. As for why it occurs has to do with the magnetic field getting entangled as the sun rotates. Well there we go cleared that one up for you.

2. accelerating solar wind

Oddly this is a problem for EU but not the standard model did you get confused? Now the problem with the standard model becomes the magnetic fields dont seem to effect the particles like it should but this is a huge problem since EU tries to tell us its caused by electricity instead of gas pressure. Meaning its obviously not an electrical process.

3. sunspots (colder inside as on the surface)

Not exactly sure what you think you mean here? im guessing you mean why it has a cooler temperature?? The magnetic field slows down activity in the convective zone. Slower convection means that less gas is transferring heat from the core of the sun to the photosphere.

3. liquid structured surface of the Sun (explained in recently shard video)

Im guessing your referring to convection it was believed this only occurred from the core to the surface turns out it also occurs east west with direction of the suns spin. Meaning now it does indeed match expected observations.

4. temperature gradient
5. not enough convection

Im leaving these two together because again same issue turns out convection isnt only from core to the surface.

6. missing neutrinos

There are no missing neutrinos anymore must be an extremely old video. The conflict used to be before we found out about solar neutrino oscillation. we couldn't get the types of neutrinos to match than it was shown you cant because neutrinos change, so a neutrino created with a specific lepton flavor (electron, muon or tau) can later be measured to have a different flavor. So we discovered we can measure the total what flavor it is will be random.

PS none of these observations can be explained if the sun where electric but as the quack website you like to use isnt concerned with that. What they like to do is try to show problems with the standard model thinking that somehow this proves EU it doesnt.Most times observations just lead us to a new understanding of the process we were unaware of.