Controlled Fusion And Supernovas

[A-wal]

First I'd like a clarification.

I've heard it claimed by Wal Thornhill and others that the fusion supposedly occurring at the core of stars is 'controlled', as opposed to the 'uncontrolled' fusion of an H bomb. After taking to scientists I've been told that the only difference is that gravity is present to contain the the process and prevent an explosion.

That's not how it was presented in the thunderbolts videos. It was claimed that energy other than gravity was required to prevent the reaction that cause an H bomb explosion. Could someone please clarify this for me?


Second, a thought occurs.

The EU idea of a supernova is that all the current of a galaxy gets concentrated on on star. I think this might be a case where fusion makes more sense than electricity though. If all the power of a galactic current were really concentrated on just one star, wouldn't you expect all other stars in the galaxy to dim for a time?

What if it's actually the exact opposite? If the current of a star is 'pinched off' but there's no power surge then that star would no longer have the associated magnetic fields to hold it up and would collapse, allowing nuclear fusion to occur. This would be the familiar H bomb type effect and would create a supernova.


One more thing. Can someone please point me to a list of solar anomalies that aren't explained by the fusion model so I can shove it down a scientists throat. Cheers.

[jacmac]

Some of your statements are not quite correct.

I've heard it claimed by Wal Thornhill and others that the fusion supposedly occurring at the core of stars is 'controlled', as opposed to the 'uncontrolled' fusion of an H bomb

I would suggest reading the material available on the home page, starting with the Synopsis etc.
There is a lot of information there.
Jack

[nick c]

I've heard it claimed by Wal Thornhill and others that the fusion supposedly occurring at the core of stars is 'controlled', as opposed to the 'uncontrolled' fusion of an H bomb.

Where did you get that from? From my reading of Thornhill, Juergens, Scott, etc. there is no fusion, controlled or otherwise, taking place in the Sun's core. The Electric Sun model has fusion occurring on or near the visible surface of the Sun and as a by product of the electric discharge.


http://www.holoscience.com/wp/our-misunderstood-sun/

Stars formed in this way have an outer envelope of helium and hydrogen. Working inwards, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen will form the atmospheric middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium will make up the core, which is cool. There is no thermonuclear engine in stars!

[A-wal]

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.

[Zyxzevn]

With electrical currents you can get focus fusion.
An organisation that works with that is "Focus fusion society".
In such a system, the fusion is caused by plasma that is focussed with electric currents and magnetic fields.
Gravity is not so important.

I think that the granules on the sun may contain such currents and fields, and be responsible for focus fusion.



The lines of the spots seem to end into granules. The lines themselves are moving plasma currents.

As I understand the model, the currents cause the fusion, in a focus fusion style.
The electric currents and the magnetic fields cause the atoms to fuse together.
The fusion itself causes the electrons and nuclei to move apart, and creates an enormous pressure.
Due to the magnetic field the electrons and nuclei both go into different directions,
and create a charge difference. The charge and pressure difference causes the plasma to move,
and the cycle starts again.

There is also Juergens' Electric Sun model at http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

[A-wal]

Yes I'm aware of the electric model, I'm talking about the standard solar model.

Wal Thornhill and at least a one other EU scientist claimed that the standard nuclear fusion model of the sun needs something to contain the fusion reaction to make it a "controlled reaction" as opposed to the "uncontrolled reaction" of an H-bomb. I've been told that there's no difference and the only thing that makes it a controlled reaction is gravity.

I'm trying to get a clarification of this particular objection to the standard solar model.

[comingfrom]

There seems to be various answers, from it is blowing up but there is just so much hydrogen it takes time, to various technical reasons why the fusion process is slow.

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

I'm convinced it is all speculation. They don't know what is happening in the core of the Sun.
Personally I believe the Sun is a rocky body like any planet, only it has a lot of charge on the surface.
You can actually see when and where the nuclear fusion is taking place when you watch videos of solar flares. At a certain point during large flares they emit extraordinary amounts of light and energy.

I found a nice example on YouTube for you.
NASA’s 4K View of April 17 Solar Flare

They replay the flare several times, and in different wavelengths.
See if you can pick the moment when nuclear fusions happen.
~Paul

[A-wal]

So no justification for Thornhill's objection to the fusion model of stars on the ground that stars in that model use 'controlled' fusion which has never been replicated in a lab then. Thanks for the links, very nice info.

The objection that there's not enough (1%) neutrinos also seems to complete BS. Initially it was a third of the predicted number but even that was before the SNO detected the rest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_N ... bservatory

[nick c]

So no justification for Thornhill's objection to the fusion model of stars on the ground that stars in that model use 'controlled' fusion which has never been replicated in a lab then.

I think that you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Thornhill's objection to fusion at the core is not centered on the lack of a lab replication. The fusion model depends upon a level of gravitational contraction that cannot, for obvious reasons, be duplicated in a lab. Thornhill may have mentioned that harnessed fusion has eluded all human attempts for more than half a century; but his objection to the fusion model rests upon more fundamental grounds.

Eddington's model is predicated on the premise that the Sun is an ideal gas. Thornhill objects to that a priori assumption, arguing that the Sun is a plasma and therefore governed by electrical forces. Gravity compresses to a point, but protons and electrons are separated and as the positively charged core becomes denser; electrostatic repulsion prevents the core from becoming a fusion reactor.

In order to fuse protons together with the force of gravity, it would have to overcome a force that is some 1039 times more powerful. Fusion takes place on the Sun but not at the core, but rather in the outer layers and by electrical forces, not gravity.

So the objection can be distilled down to this simple reason...the Sun is not composed of an ideal gas it is a plasma. Keep in mind that all of the thousands of peer reviewed analyses in Astronomy journals with their reams of calculations are based upon this a priori assumption. The attack is not on this or that detail, but rather on the fundamental assumption of the model. In a manner it is simple.
If the ideal gas assumption accurately describes reality then Eddington's model of a fusion powered Sun is probably on the right track. And if not....then a paradigm shift is in order.

That is my layman's understanding.

[A-wal]

Thanks but I am focusing on one particular tree that I've heard being presented as refuting the fusion model on at least two separate occasions because of a conversation I'm having on a mainstream site. This tree:

The fusion model of the sun uses 'controlled' fusion, as opposed to the 'uncontrolled' fusion of a H-bomb.
Controlled fusion has been a goal of scientists for decades without ever being achieved.
Therefore the fusion model of the sun may be flawed in principle.

This objection to the solar fusion model is completely invalid as far as I can see because there's no distinction between a controlled and uncontrolled fusion process. It's just that in the solar fusion model the explosive force of an H-bomb is contained by the gravity of the star.

Another tree is the neutrino problem that's also been mentioned multiple times but hasn't been a problem for a while:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_N ... bservatory

Two rotten trees isn't a good sign, the entire forest might be ill.

[comingfrom]

I was justifying Thornhill,
and any one who says controlled fusion in the core is incorrect theory.

I think it is the greatest problem for the standard model of the Sun, because every knows,
if you have an explosion in the middle of your fuel, the whole lot goes up in one big bang.

So they need a mechanism to prevent this from occurring, because obviously the Sun doesn't do that.
I read some pretty complicated theories that try to get around this problem.
They all sound like desperate attempts to save the standard model to me.
~Paul

[A-wal]

No that isn't a valid objection at all.

Star are 'exploding' all the time in the fusion model. What prevents them from expanding is that this outward pressure is balanced by the inward pressure of the star's gravity. For the objection to be valid it would have to be shown that stars in the fusion model DON'T use in the fusion in the same way as an H-bomb and this isn't the case. In the fusion model there are countless H-bombs going off all the time and this is in fact a necessity of the model to prevent collapse.

If the electric model needs to invent problems like this and the neutrino count (that in fact matches the fusion model) in order to seem more credible then it seems that the standard model isn't the one that desperately needs saving.

[jacmac]

Let me see If I have this right.
The standard model sun is Plasma.
Plasma is electromagnetic gas.
Electromagnetic force is 10 ^39 power stronger than gravity.
But, gravity is doing the "controlling".
Duh.

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.

ALL that we know from space comes to us by way of ELECTROMAGNETIC radiation.
(with the exception of rocks that fall to earth)
But, gravity does everything.
Duh

The failure of so called "standard" model science to include the electromagnetic force in their
models of how the universe works is indefensable.
jack

Ps. They are trying to come in the back door with MAGNETISM, without the electricity.
Duh

[D_Archer]

No that isn't a valid objection at all.

Star are 'exploding' all the time in the fusion model. What prevents them from expanding is that this outward pressure is balanced by the inward pressure of the star's gravity. For the objection to be valid it would have to be shown that stars in the fusion model DON'T use in the fusion in the same way as an H-bomb and this isn't the case. In the fusion model there are countless H-bombs going off all the time and this is in fact a necessity of the model to prevent collapse.

If the electric model needs to invent problems like this and the neutrino count (that in fact matches the fusion model) in order to seem more credible then it seems that the standard model isn't the one that desperately needs saving.

I think you need to reread the standard 'fusion in the core of the sun' model and really study it better, see if it still makes sense then. Also where do you think gravity starts and ends? Is there gravity in the center of an astron (sun/planet)?

---

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.

Can you source this? I might have heard something similar but not exactly as you say it, this is probably a misunderstanding on your part about what was really said. I do think some EU proponents have said that this chase to use fusion as an energy source might be money wasted, because it might not be possible in a lab/controlled environment to do this (in the manner the mainstream is approaching this), i have not heard about anyone relating this as an argument against the fusion model of the sun.

EU stance > https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... fusion.htm

Critics, however, pointed out that the temperatures given by standard gas laws are not sufficient to provoke nuclear fusion. They cited the “Coulomb barrier”, in this case the electric repulsion between two protons, or like charges. Once protons are fused, they could be held together by the strong nuclear force, but that force dominates only at short distances. To achieve fusion, it would be necessary for protons to cross the barrier of the repulsive electric force, which is sufficient to keep the protons apart forever. But Eddington’s successors accomplished the impossible by something called quantum tunneling

My comment: Whenever mainstream hits a wall, they invoke magic, in this case "quantum tunneling".

---

The EU idea of a supernova is that all the current of a galaxy gets concentrated on on star. I think this might be a case where fusion makes more sense than electricity though. If all the power of a galactic current were really concentrated on just one star, wouldn't you expect all other stars in the galaxy to dim for a time?

No, that is not the EU idea. In the Electric Universe stars form along/inside stellar filaments/currents, the pinch is the focus for the current from that filament. No, no dimming of any other star would be expected. Galaxies reside in galactic currents.
---

The objection that there's not enough (1%) neutrinos also seems to complete BS. Initially it was a third of the predicted number but even that was before the SNO detected the rest

The neutrino problem still exists for the core fusion model of the sun, No, SNO has not detected the missing neutrinos. Remember anytime the mainstream hits a wall they invoke magic. In this case the neutrinos magically changed on their way from the Sun to the Earth, a very lucky break for their model, just the right amount changed to fill the holes in their models.
---

As for EU, i would suggest as other have to really read more and get in depth first, before stating obvious misunderstandings on your side. We are all here to learn and question.

Regards,
Daniel

[A-wal]

Off topic!

Let me see If I have this right.
The standard model sun is Plasma.
Plasma is electromagnetic gas.
Electromagnetic force is 10 ^39 power stronger than gravity.
But, gravity is doing the "controlling".
Duh.

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 strength of gravity compared to electro-magnetism is meaningless in this context. There can be a lot of it. If gravity has a strength of 1 unit and electo-magnatism 1000 units then if there's 4000 units of gravity and 2 units of electo-magnetism then gravity will have twice the influence. Your argument makes no sense.

ALL that we know from space comes to us by way of ELECTROMAGNETIC radiation.
(with the exception of rocks that fall to earth)
But, gravity does everything.
Duh

Except, you know, orbit! Duh

The failure of so called "standard" model science to include the electromagnetic force in their
models of how the universe works is indefensable.

This crap is indefensible!

Ps. They are trying to come in the back door with MAGNETISM, without the electricity.
Duh

If you say so.

No that isn't a valid objection at all.

Star are 'exploding' all the time in the fusion model. What prevents them from expanding is that this outward pressure is balanced by the inward pressure of the star's gravity. For the objection to be valid it would have to be shown that stars in the fusion model DON'T use in the fusion in the same way as an H-bomb and this isn't the case. In the fusion model there are countless H-bombs going off all the time and this is in fact a necessity of the model to prevent collapse.

If the electric model needs to invent problems like this and the neutrino count (that in fact matches the fusion model) in order to seem more credible then it seems that the standard model isn't the one that desperately needs saving.

I think you need to reread the standard 'fusion in the core of the sun' model and really study it better, see if it still makes sense then. Also where do you think gravity starts and ends? Is there gravity in the center of an astron (sun/planet)?

I'm just focusing on this one claim.

The fusion model of the sun uses 'controlled' fusion, as opposed to the 'uncontrolled' fusion of a H-bomb.
Controlled fusion has been a goal of scientists for decades without ever being achieved.
Therefore the fusion model of the sun may be flawed in principle.

And neutrinos. Two claims.

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.

Can you source this? I might have heard something similar but not exactly as you say it, this is probably a misunderstanding on your part about what was really said. I do think some EU proponents have said that this chase to use fusion as an energy source might be money wasted, because it might not be possible in a lab/controlled environment to do this (in the manner the mainstream is approaching this), i have not heard about anyone relating this as an argument against the fusion model of the sun.

No Thornhill and at least one other definitely made the argument that the standard model uses a different kind of fusion ('controlled') to that of an H-bomb. This is a false claim, and one that I made on another forum along with the neutrino problem. I don't know what videos they were, from about two years ago I think. I wish this community would be more intellectually honest, I don't trust anything they say now.

EU stance > https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... fusion.htm

Critics, however, pointed out that the temperatures given by standard gas laws are not sufficient to provoke nuclear fusion. They cited the “Coulomb barrier”, in this case the electric repulsion between two protons, or like charges. Once protons are fused, they could be held together by the strong nuclear force, but that force dominates only at short distances. To achieve fusion, it would be necessary for protons to cross the barrier of the repulsive electric force, which is sufficient to keep the protons apart forever. But Eddington’s successors accomplished the impossible by something called quantum tunneling

My comment: Whenever mainstream hits a wall, they invoke magic, in this case "quantum tunneling".

I don't know enough about it to comment specifically on this but do you realise that quantum mechanics is by far the most successful scientific theory ever despite its implications being disputed? Quantum tunneling is a very real effect. It does seem like a handy goto whenever they're stuck though. That doesn't make it wrong.

The EU idea of a supernova is that all the current of a galaxy gets concentrated on on star. I think this might be a case where fusion makes more sense than electricity though. If all the power of a galactic current were really concentrated on just one star, wouldn't you expect all other stars in the galaxy to dim for a time?

No, that is not the EU idea. In the Electric Universe stars form along/inside stellar filaments/currents, the pinch is the focus for the current from that filament. No, no dimming of any other star would be expected. Galaxies reside in galactic currents.

Thornhill said that supernovas have the current of an entire galaxy focused on them for short amount of time. If the electric model is true then where do the stars in that galaxy get their power from during this time?

The objection that there's not enough (1%) neutrinos also seems to complete BS. Initially it was a third of the predicted number but even that was before the SNO detected the rest

The neutrino problem still exists for the core fusion model of the sun, No, SNO has not detected the missing neutrinos. Remember anytime the mainstream hits a wall they invoke magic. In this case the neutrinos magically changed on their way from the Sun to the Earth, a very lucky break for their model, just the right amount changed to fill the holes in their models.

This is entirely false! To begin with they detected one third of the expected neutrinos. It was theorised that neutrinos oscillate between types (there's three types). Then oscillation was proved to occur but not necessarily solar neutrinos. Then they actually did detect the missing neutrinos of the other two types and now there's no missing neutrinos. Read the links I posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_N ... bservatory

As for EU, i would suggest as other have to really read more and get in depth first, before stating obvious misunderstandings on your side. We are all here to learn and question.

The obvious misunderstandings aren't coming from me. The level of logic here is a joke, far more irrational the mainstream. It's no wonder this isn't taken seriously. And this is coming from somebody who does believe that electric currents heat the photosphere (but not power stars now) and does think that stars form along current filaments and galaxies along intergalactic current filaments. Something to think about.