Electric Sun

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby david barclay » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:03 pm

I feel very strongly that many here are getting a bit ahead of themselves.

What is required is a very basic model of the sun, not some complicated razzle dazzle demonstration.

There are basic principles to be considered which allow for the solar fields existence and continuance, without the basic foundation in place you can end up getting lost is a sea of complexity.

The sun is not a big fireball, it is a very stable structure functioning on the basis of non-linear relative dynamics.

Consider for example the inside/outside concept, where the internal dynamics remain inversely proportional to the external dynamics whereby providing for a stable field structure.
david barclay
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby allynh » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:38 pm

Yeah, we need to fit this:
192px-Plasma-lamp_2.jpg
192px-Plasma-lamp_2.jpg (18.07 KiB) Viewed 7159 times

inside this:
Birkeland-Current-pair-twisted.jpg
Birkeland-Current-pair-twisted.jpg (13.57 KiB) Viewed 7159 times

and then clarify what they mean by this:
MGmirkin wrote:Planets form minor physical cathodes in the heliospheric discharge.
VenusTail.jpg
VenusTail.jpg (6.78 KiB) Viewed 7159 times

Each planet acts as a small secondary cathode in this solar glow discharge and develops an invisible cometary plasma sheath, the tail of which stretches away from the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic. The cometary plasma sheath of Venus was found to stretch as far as the Earth during inferior conjunction. Researchers were puzzled by the coherent “stringy” nature of the Venusian plasma tail.



Because if the tail is a "string" thing, that sounds like more of this.
Birkeland-Current-pair-twisted.jpg
Birkeland-Current-pair-twisted.jpg (13.57 KiB) Viewed 7159 times

Since everything seems to scale up, then when I hold this in my hand
192px-Plasma-lamp_2.jpg
192px-Plasma-lamp_2.jpg (18.07 KiB) Viewed 7159 times

then I am looking at the earth/solar system/galaxy all nested inside each other, and now I'm really trippin'. Whoa!

This is the kind of thing that the EU guys need to put in clear images if I'm ever going to "see" it.

Thanks...
allynh
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:33 pm

David B: The sun or any other star cannot be dependent on its existence from an outside source, it seems less than rational that a delivery failure would terminate the suns existence.

* It seems that visible stars do remain visible in large part for hundreds of years so far, as long as scientists have been keeping accurate track of them. If a star stopped being visible, it likely wouldn't be because it stopped existing. It would be because something reduces the current to it and it doesn't shine as brightly. It seems that the currents are seldom greatly interrupted to the visible stars. If you assume that electric current can't flow through interstellar and intergalactic space, I think you've neglected to notice the many TPODs, or Thunderbolts Pictures of the Day, which show otherwise; and you've apparently neglected to read up on Thornhill's website and others. The solar wind is certainly an electric current moving through interplanetary space.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:53 pm

There is a resonance of geometry and electricity when ever a star shines. The longitudinal scalar current flows both ways as phase conjugate quantum resonance from the equator of the sun right to the heart of the Milky Way Galaxy. The pump beams enter both poles. So it is with the galactic core...yes as above, so below straight into the sight we use to see the stars and the consciouness we use to understand them, each and everyone is a Phase Conjugate Non Linear system.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby david barclay » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:20 pm

Lloyd wrote:
David B: The sun or any other star cannot be dependent on its existence from an outside source, it seems less than rational that a delivery failure would terminate the suns existence.

* It seems that visible stars do remain visible in large part for hundreds of years so far, as long as scientists have been keeping accurate track of them. If a star stopped being visible, it likely wouldn't be because it stopped existing. It would be because something reduces the current to it and it doesn't shine as brightly. It seems that the currents are seldom greatly interrupted to the visible stars. If you assume that electric current can't flow through interstellar and intergalactic space, I think you've neglected to notice the many TPODs, or Thunderbolts Pictures of the Day, which show otherwise; and you've apparently neglected to read up on Thornhill's website and others. The solar wind is certainly an electric current moving through interplanetary space.


No Lloyd I have not neglected any of those things. A star is a physical structure and as such must be formulated on the basis of the same principles governing all physical structure.

I was being a bit sarcastic about the sun failing to exist.

Of course electrical current can move through space, as electrical current flows from the sun to the earth and from the sun to mars etc.

Electricity is due to a differential in energy, which is why all physical structure carries an electrical charge.

What I'm saying is that the sun and all other stars are self generating systems and not dependent on an external electrical supply. So no batteries required.
david barclay
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:35 pm

David B: What I'm saying is that the sun and all other stars are self generating systems and not dependent on an external electrical supply. So no batteries required.

* Have you read EU theory on how stars and galaxies form? Arp's observations of quasars and galaxies find that quasars shoot out of usually the poles active galactic nuclei at relativistic speed in pairs in opposite directions, apparently highly ionized, thus yielding red shift of light. Thus galaxies aren't self-generating; they're generated by parent galaxies in plasma gun conditions. Finding one or more stars also moving at relativistic speed in the Milky Way suggested that stars are generated in a similar way on a smaller scale, possibly from pulsars or planetary nebulae. Pulsars themselves are pulsing because they're capacitors like blinkers on cars, that build up charge from a steady current, then discharge and repeat the cycle. Maybe all large celestial objects are capacitors. The Earth is one too, and a TPOD explains. See http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... acitor.htm
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby david barclay » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:08 pm

Now its getting complicated because pulsars are fast spinning low energy systems, which are not at all like our sun.

I think the concept of EU is a good one, but there are pieces missing.

How does the aether fit in, because it does have to fit.
david barclay
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:19 pm

Indeed the scalar field of virtual charge from the aether (rmf) must be accounted for.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby david barclay » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:36 pm

This is why I say the sun is self generating, because it is the aether flow in 4 directions which provides for the sun's electrical charge.

And the aether flow is a one way street in relation to an accelerating field of frequency, but not so in relation to a decelerating field of frequency.

So the aether accelerates inward and decelerates outwardly.

Resistance to a further increase in aether energy decreases in one direction and increases in the other.

The gravity of the sun is highest across the surface curve and decreases both inwardly and outwardly.

So at the center of the sun you have zero gravity and maximum aether energy, which translates into very low temperatures at the core, super cold.

No liquid or solid metallic core is required to produce an electric sun.
david barclay
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby MGmirkin » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:45 am

mharratsc wrote:What haven't I ever seen those 'astrosphere' images before?? You would think those would've been headline news when they were taken!


Ehh, you meant that tongue-in-cheek, right?

I think they generally were somewhat of a big deal when originally released. Mira for sure got quite a bit of play on various web sites...

(A Star with a Comet's Tail)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/15aug_mira.htm

In fact, I recall there was a bit of squawking on the forums here about that time. ;o] Probably in the archives somewhere... Not sure whether it was before or after the crash of Forum 1.0...

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby MGmirkin » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:05 am

david barclay wrote:The sun or any other star cannot be dependent on its existence from an outside source


And why not? I don't see any universal laws on the books prohibiting it.

it seems less than rational that a delivery failure would terminate the suns existence.


Just because it's a frightening thought that we may be at the whim of external forces not under our control, that doesn't make it an irrational thought. On the contrary to your statement, *if* stars are powered externally, then it is wholly rational *within that frame of reference* to believe that, as you say, "a delivery failure" (short circuit, etc?) would terminate the Sun's status as a star (or at least as the typical yellow star we know). At that point it may turn into a red giant or a brown dwarf, depending on just how much the current density drops.

But consider, as Thornhill has stated previously, from observations there don't appear to be any large populations of stars in our local neighborhood winking out or going nova, so it seems a safe bet that the power source is relatively stable for the foreseeable future. Keeping in mind that as you scale up the size of plasma processes, you also scale up the time period over which they occur. So, what occurs on our scale in seconds or minutes may occur on solar timescales in days, months or years. On galactic scales, who knows... Megayears? Gigayears?

If we start seeing a wave of supernovas in the Milky Way or a wave of stars winking out, then it might be time to worry... 'Til then, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Just look at the recent measuring of persistent current in nano rings, a self sustaining charge.


I assume you mean a self-sustaining CURRENT, not CHARGE? Charge being equivalent to the number of particles above and beyond neutrality. Current being gross motion of like-charged particles. The two not being the same thing. ;) Just saying.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby MGmirkin » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:13 am

david barclay wrote:there is a certain condition of universe remaining relative to the sun. This however is not the same condition of universe remaining relative to our planet earth, even though the two conditions exist simultaneously in terms of past and future conditions.

&
david barclay wrote:Consider for example the inside/outside concept, where the internal dynamics remain inversely proportional to the external dynamics whereby providing for a stable field structure.


Lots of syllables there... But, in the words of Austin Powers:
"Whoop dee doo Basil! What does it all mean?"

:?: :?:

Guess I'm just not following or intuiting the various and sundry lines of thought on this thread.

~MG
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby MGmirkin » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:44 am

david barclay wrote:here is a shocker, the core of the sun is very, extremely, cold, like super frozen. Plus the core of the sun is hollow.


Not according to the standard model and, as far as I know, not according to the EU model either...

Got a reference, or making it up as you go? Just wondering.

Standard model says it's a nuclear furnace and thus really, really, really, like super really hot.

EU more-or-less says "Nobody's ever made direct measurements of the interior of the sun, so anything anyone says is conjecture. We simply don't know." Though hints (particular radial oscillations) apparently point to an isodense sun. But I think that's about as far as anyone's gone in addressing the interior...

(THOTH -- A Catastrophics Newsletter; VOL IV, No 5, March 15, 2000)
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV05.txt

Wal Thornhill wrote:Eddington's argument is too simplistic. Thermal ionization of hydrogen only becomes significant at a temperature of about 100,000K. So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. Those dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense. (An important corollary for the electric star model is that stars cannot be compressed to form neutron stars. The stronger the gravity the more powerful is the electrical repulsion to balance it. Since neutron stars are the theoretical pre-cursor of a black hole, both can be clearly seen to be a mathematical fiction).


Wal Thornhill wrote:Do we have any evidence that our Sun is essentially isodense? Some early work in helioseismology by Severney, Kotov and others found dominant pulsations of the Sun which fitted the homogeneous sphere model. They wrote in 1976, "The simplest interpretation is that we observed purely radial pulsations. The most striking fact is that the observed period [160 minutes] is almost precisely the value if the Sun were to be an homogeneous sphere. We have investigated two possible solutions to this dilemma. The first alternative is that nuclear reactions are not responsible for energy generation in the Sun. Such a conclusion, although rather extravagant, is quite consistent with the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux from the Sun, and with the observed abundance of Li and Be in the solar atmosphere." The second alternative involved force fitting the data to the standard solar model by assuming that the oscillations were not simply radial but of a more complicated form. However, the implications were so disturbing for theorists that the work was repeated in various locations and all sources of error looked for. The result in 1981 was that the original oscillation was found to be the highest peak in the power spectrum, and "one may conclude that 160-min oscillation shows mostly radial motion." In reporting the status of solar oscillation observations in 1991 in "Solar Interior and Atmosphere", F. Hill et al report on the 160-minute oscillation without any reference to the implied homogeneous Sun. Rather, they spend half a page casting suspicion on the extensive observations and attempting to minimize its significance. The reason is only thinly veiled; "Additional doubt comes from the difficulty of theoretically describing the nature of the oscillation." In other words, we won't accept the data if it doesn't fit the standard model!


(THOTH -- A Catastrophics Newsletter; VOL IV, No 15, Oct 15, 2000)
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV15.txt

Don Scott wrote:5. Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size

There is experimental evidence that the Sun vibrates in a way that throws doubt on both the assumed convection process for heat transportation and the thermonuclear reaction itself. There is a fluctuation with a 27 day 43 minute period observed in the stream of particles emanating from the sun.

In the 1970's the Sun was observed to be oscillating in brightness with variable cycles lasting from a few minutes to nearly one hour.

The sun actually expands and contracts in size (diameter) with a periodicity of 2 hours and 40 minutes. Russian investigators found a periodic rise and fall of the entire solar surface, the amplitude of which was 10 kilometers in height. Then another observer recorded a regular expansion and contraction of the Sun with a period of two hours and forty minutes.

These pulsations are much more consistent with a homogeneous model of the Sun - like a balloon whose gases are of uniform density throughout its body. In Nature (Jan 15, 1976) two British theorists, J.Christensen-Dalsgaard and D.O. Gough emphasized the unlikelihood that any model can be devised for the Sun to accommodate both the observed radial oscillations and the thermonuclear theory. They are also consistent with a model wherein the Sun is an isodense sphere of gas that supports, on its outer surface, an electric arc discharge powered externally, electrically.


Both of the above are guesstimates based apparently on the researches relating to solar oscillations. But I believe they've said elsewhere (can't find a reference at the moment) that since nobody's directly observed the innards of the sun its internal composition can be little better than the merest guesswork from external observations. And those guesses will tend to be a bit model-dependent. The standard model preferring an internal nuclear furnace providing energy radiatively to the surface. The EU model preferring external currents powering the sun from without as part of a heliospheric glow discharge tube analogy. The sun being a stressed anode, with a DL in the chromosphere and anode tufting... Internal composition as-yet unknown, since nobody's stuck a probe inside it to give definitive readings.

Anywho...

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Self-generation?

Unread postby MGmirkin » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:06 am

david barclay wrote:What I'm saying is that the sun and all other stars are self generating systems and not dependent on an external electrical supply. So no batteries required.


How does a system self-generate? Isn't that about akin to creation ex nihilo?

IE, a thing at equilibrium probably won't move out of equilibrium without some external force applied to it.

The bowl of water sitting still on the table, probably won't start having waves and ripples unless I tap it. Likewise the bowl won't crash into the floor and the punch spill everywhere unless I push it off the table. Or one of the legs gives out because it's rickety and the force of gravity was greater than the remaining tensile strength of the splintered leg. (Knew I should have gotten rid of that thing years ago! There went my nice crystal punch bowl... Time to go back to Targét for another one!)

Wouldn't a self-generating system violate conservation of energy by generating energy / motion without an input of energy / motion to the system? Just not seeing the whole self-generating thing happening. Maybe it's just me. What's the source of the internal electrical who's-a-ma-whats-its? What generates it? What sustains it? Are Maxwell's equations involved?

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Electric Sun

Unread postby Drethon » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:22 am

david barclay wrote:Now its getting complicated because pulsars are fast spinning low energy systems, which are not at all like our sun.

I think the concept of EU is a good one, but there are pieces missing.

How does the aether fit in, because it does have to fit.


Has anyone proved a pulsar spins or have they only proved its output spikes at a regular interval?

If someone has not already posted this, somewhere in www.holoscience.com (sorry, can't seem to locate it though it might be this article http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df) is an article with a theory that the aether is actually a sea of neutrinos in space that interact together to produce em radiation effects and gravity.
Drethon
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests