Controlled Fusion And Supernovas

[Webbman]

I'm pretty sure every solar flare ive seen is completely uncontrolled, and hence the mass ejections and explosions.

while id wager this is where fusion takes place, I would also wager that the fusion process is not a fuel source at all, but a byproduct to extreme electrical charge. You can see it involves lightning and magnetism. To me fusion is an elemental generator, not a powersource. A way to make new planets.

they cant sustain a fusion reaction or get power from it on earth for a reason. The power must come from the galaxy but if they told you that the whole gravity theme would fall apart now wouldn't it.

[A-wal]

Then where are all the neutrinos coming from? It almost exactly matches the prediction of the fusion model.

The photoshere I think is where we're seeing the galactic current coming into the solar system before some of it goes out to the planets.

The question then becomes, why doesn't the current weaken after traveling through a star system? Where is the energy coming from? Fusion! Nuclear fusion releases a lot of energy. If we're comparing force strength it's much more powerful than electro-magnetism.

I think the most likely scenario is that stars attract the current, heating the photosphere and lighting the star while fusion sustains the current strength, What then 'powers' stars becomes a matter of perspective.

[Solar]

No no, you misunderstand. Sorry I should have been clearer.

Wal Thornhill and others suggested that in the mainstream nuclear fusion model of stars, it's a controlled fusion as opposed to the uncontrolled fusion of an H-bomb and that was used by them as a refutation of the model.

According to someone I'm taking to on another site, the only difference between the (supposed) fusion inside a star is that it's confined by gravitation. Now I'm assuming that according to Thornhill, Juergens, Scott, etc, gravity alone wouldn't be enough to contain the explosion?

I think I remember reading from a mainstream source that the two processes are a bit different. I thought that the chain reaction associated with a H-bomb doesn't occur in stars according to the model. Instead it's a continuous fusion ignition process that doesn't chain react.

All cosmological theories need "saving". The following August 2014 discussion over at Stacked Exchanged demonstrates that questions regarding a “runaway” process versus a stable process isn't unique to Thornhill, Scott et al:

Why does the Sun's (or other stars') nuclear reaction not use up all its “fuel” immediately?

Why not simply read up on some of the opinions the Eddington inspired standard solar model?:

Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?

Our Misunderstood Sun

THE SUN — Our Variable Star

Science’s Looming ‘Tipping Point’

Points and Counter Points:

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis: Tim Thompson

Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal: Donald E. Scott –Ph.D

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal from Don Scott Part 1: Solar Neutrinos Tim Thompson

As far as I know none of the TB videos (Space News etc.) have been transcribed into any sort of search-able data. Both The Thunderbolts Project website and Holoscience have “Search” feature in in the upper right of the page - links are currently populated with the phrase "standard solar model".

This post is a forum member service.

[A-wal]

Thank you, that's what I was after, clarification of the 'controlled' fusion objection. Neutrino refutations too. Looks like I've got some reading to do, later.

[jacmac]

You are correct A-wal, I got a bit "uncontrolled" and off topic,
but it felt good at the time.
Jack

[A-wal]

No problem. Sorry for the reaction, it's just frustrating trying to keep it focused on the specific objections and not have into turn into a general EU vs mainstream debate.

The more uncontrolled ranting EU supporters do towards the mainstream, the less credible the EU seems. Stick to specifics, not generalisations of gravity vs electro-magnetism.

[D_Archer]

No problem. Sorry for the reaction, it's just frustrating trying to keep it focused on the specific objections and not have into turn into a general EU vs mainstream debate.

The more uncontrolled ranting EU supporters do towards the mainstream, the less credible the EU seems. Stick to specifics, not generalisations of gravity vs electro-magnetism.

Yes specifics, like sourcing your statements, if you say 'Wal said this and that´, which did you did twice it is backbite; Solar provided some links to you but these can also easily be found with google or going to the thunderbolts.info website.

EU is not hurt by its ranters towards mainstream, a rant can be very good, this (and other "intellectual wars") has been going back and forth on the interwebs a long time now. For actual discussions it is the written material that should be used and this forum (and on this forum people can say whatever they want and are free to generalize).

Regards,
Daniel

[A-wal]

No problem. Sorry for the reaction, it's just frustrating trying to keep it focused on the specific objections and not have into turn into a general EU vs mainstream debate.

The more uncontrolled ranting EU supporters do towards the mainstream, the less credible the EU seems. Stick to specifics, not generalisations of gravity vs electro-magnetism.

Yes specifics, like sourcing your statements, if you say 'Wal said this and that´, which did you did twice it is backbite; Solar provided some links to you but these can also easily be found with google or going to the thunderbolts.info website.

I'm not making a scientific claim that requires a reference. I'm just asked for a justification/clarification of a particular objection to the nuclear fusion model, one that was made in at least videos. I should have to find the videos (that would take ages) to question the validity of the argument.

EU is not hurt by its ranters towards mainstream, a rant can be very good, this (and other "intellectual wars") has been going back and forth on the interwebs a long time now. For actual discussions it is the written material that should be used and this forum (and on this forum people can say whatever they want and are free to generalize).

There's nothing wrong with generalisations specifically. It's just that statements like 'electo-magnetism is stronger than gravity, it must have more influence on the universe' aren't scientific, they're ideological.

[Solar]

Member A-wal this "controlled" versus "uncontrolled" motif is definitely present in a few places. At 16:15 in the following Thunderbolts Project video - published Aug 9, 2013 - there occurs a subtitle in reference to the standard model labeled "Controlled Fusion?"

David Talbott: Exposing the Myths of "Settled Science"

It may, however, have specifically been Bishop Sykes between 2:23 - 3:30 of the following Space News:

When a nuclear bomb explodes the nuclear reaction is said to be uncontrolled. There is no ability to slow it down or have it produce a smaller amount of power over an extended time.
(...)
And so nobody had any qualms about modeling the Sun on just this basis."
(...)
If the sun is to be modeled on nuclear fusion; it must be a controlled fusion furnace that can continue producing energy for many millions of years." - How Does the Sun Work?: Space News Sept 7 2016

This motif was utilized by him below as well:

Furthermore it has been assumed for many years that it would just be a matter of time and the refining of research to discover some way of controlling the process of nuclear fusion which was at the heart of nuclear bomb production. When a nuclear bomb explodes, the nuclear reaction is said to be “uncontrolled” – there is no ability to slow it down or have it produce a smaller amount of power over an extended time. To discover and master controlled nuclear fusion has been an aim of scientists and technologists for some six decades, with the incentive that the basic fuel for it is plentiful and readily available. It was never envisaged when nuclear technology began that the tough nut of controlled fusion would prove to be such a hard one to crack, and so nobody had any qualms about modelling the Sun on just this basis: not being, obviously, an ephemeral phenomenon like a hydrogen bomb (here today and gone tomorrow), if it were to be modelled upon nuclear fusion it must be a controlled fusion furnace that could continue producing energy for billions of years. - Article 6 The Workings of the Sun

The second part of your question involved galactic currents as relates supernova:

"But as I have shown, a supernova is simply an electrical explosion of a star that draws its energy from a galactic circuit. The remarkable brilliance of a supernova, which can exceed that of its host galaxy for days or weeks, is explained by the kind of power transmission line failure that can also be seen occasionally on Earth. If such a circuit is suddenly opened, the electromagnetic energy stored in the extensive circuit is concentrated at the point where the circuit is broken, producing catastrophic arcing. Stars too can ‘open their circuit’ due to a plasma instability causing, for example, a magnetic ‘pinch off’ of the interstellar Birkeland current. The ‘standard candle’ effect and light curve is then simply due to the circuit parameters of galactic transmission lines, which power all stars. - A Nobel Prize for the Dark Side

"Novae and supernovae are the explosive response of stars to a power surge in their galactic circuit." - Synopsis: Exploring the electric Universe

"And supernovae are galactic “electrical circuit breakers,” not a fanciful stellar implosion followed by explosion. There is, in fact, firm evidence of external triggering of supernovae, which is shown in the non-random periodic behavior of extragalactic supernovae. Plasma physicist Anthony Peratt has noted, “Supernovae in the plasma community are viewed as the release of energy from a galactic-dimensioned filament.” And the aftermath of a supernova is clearly an axial Z-pinch plasma discharge configuration." - The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star

The third informational request involved:

...some anomalies from a long list that Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott enumerate in their book The Electric Universe in Chapter 3 – Electric Stars. These are all solar features that cause problems for mainstream theory but are expected in an electrical model. - Article 8: Anomalous Features of the Sun

The motif is definitely present. Whether or not it was verbally utilized in a presentation by anyone else other than Sykes is unknown at this time. Also, with regard to the Supernova/Galactic Current circuital relationship, I'd caution to consider that the relationship is *probably* a reference to a "parallel" circuit. Normally a "parallel" circuit is preconfigured to allow for the potential disruption of one (or more) of the nodes on a circuit without disturbing current flow to other nodes on the same circuit. One can, however, preconfigure "series" circuits to 'function' as though the nodes are in parallel when the moment is needed.

Christmas Lights

Like "magnetic reconnection" at a moment's notice when a disruption occurs the circuits, the associated electric and magnetic fields, can rearrange. With no dimming. LOL!!

[comingfrom]

Solar, you are a star.

Thank you for all your informative posts.
~Paul

[Webbman]

I don't accept neutrinos and I never will.

pure madness.

[A-wal]

Ah, thank you Solar!

I don't accept neutrinos and I never will.

pure madness.

Huh? Why?

They're not a theory, they've been observed and are known part of fusion among other things, and I actually think it adds credibility to either model. The biggest problem with the electric model is where is the charge coming from? If stars are nuclear dynamos it answers that question. It could be called the hybrid electric fusion (HEF) model.

[jacmac]

With apologies to all the on topic posters, especially Solar for providing all that relevant material, I am going off topic again.
A-wal said that I said:

'electo-magnetism is stronger than gravity, it must have more influence on the universe'

I did not say that.
Please try to be more accurate.
I did say:

96 %(or more) of the known Universe is plasma.
Plasma is electromagnetic gas.
Electromagnetic force is 10^39 power stronger than gravity.
But, there is no electricity in space.
Duh.

The Standard models of cosmology deny that there is any electricity in space, or if there is any, it doesn't do anything. I believe this to be a fact about the standard models.
At a public astronomy lecture at the university where I live I asked the professor about electricity in the solar system. She said" there is no electricity in space, we have not found any batteries in space".

It is enough to make a person prone to the occasional RANT.
Jack

[Webbman]

Ah, thank you Solar!

I don't accept neutrinos and I never will.

pure madness.

Huh? Why?

They're not a theory, they've been observed and are known part of fusion among other things, and I actually think it adds credibility to either model. The biggest problem with the electric model is where is the charge coming from? If stars are nuclear dynamos it answers that question. It could be called the hybrid electric fusion (HEF) model.

who has "directly" observed a neutrino?

[A-wal]

With apologies to all the on topic posters, especially Solar for providing all that relevant material, I am going off topic again.
A-wal said that I said:

'electo-magnetism is stronger than gravity, it must have more influence on the universe'

I did not say that.
Please try to be more accurate.
I did say:

96 %(or more) of the known Universe is plasma.
Plasma is electromagnetic gas.
Electromagnetic force is 10^39 power stronger than gravity.
But, there is no electricity in space.
Duh.

I wasn't quoting you, I used 's, not "s. It was just an example of a non-argument I've heard a few times.

The Standard models of cosmology deny that there is any electricity in space, or if there is any, it doesn't do anything. I believe this to be a fact about the standard models.
At a public astronomy lecture at the university where I live I asked the professor about electricity in the solar system. She said" there is no electricity in space, we have not found any batteries in space".

It is enough to make a person prone to the occasional RANT.

I don't accept neutrinos and I never will.

pure madness.

Huh? Why?

They're not a theory, they've been observed and are known part of fusion among other things, and I actually think it adds credibility to either model. The biggest problem with the electric model is where is the charge coming from? If stars are nuclear dynamos it answers that question. It could be called the hybrid electric fusion (HEF) model.

who has "directly" observed a neutrino?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector