The Electric Sun

[sol88]

The latest news in about the Voyager II space craft encountering the Heliopause

From the story LINK

This implies that the Heliosphere, a spherical bubble of charged low-energy particles created by our sun's solar wind, is irregularly shaped, bulging in the northern hemisphere and pressed inward in the south.

Scientists determined that Voyager I was approaching the termination shock when it began detecting charged particles that were being pushed back toward the sun by charged particles coming from outside our solar system. This occurred when Voyager 1 was about 85 AU from the sun.

Did they mention "detecting charged particles that were being pushed back toward the sun by charged particles coming from outside our solar system"


Any thoughts by mainstreamer on how this can occur in electrically neutral space? You would have already read in the old EU LINK thread that one of the hang ups was no particles were "seen" incoming to the Sun. They now appear to have been detected

So how do the observations fit with the Mainstream model in relation to the EU model?

Let the rabid responses begin

Sol

[tusenfem]

Dunno about rabid, I got all my shots against rabies, FSME, etc. etc.

But if you would know something about termination shocks I do not think you would be surprised. It is where the heliosphere "holds off" the interstellar wind (comparable with the solar wind). There are bound to be particles coming in there.
Seeing them at 85 AU is a far cry from seeing them in a whole circuit with the sun in its center.

[Fram]

This fits the Mainstream model quite well, thank you.
This basic educational site has it explained (emphasis mine):

The pressure exerted by the solar wind depends on both density and magnetic field; because both these get increasingly weaker as the gas spreads out from the Sun, so does the pressure. But another gas, extremely rarefied, fills space outside the solar system, the "interstellar medium." One may well expect the solar wind's expansion to end wherever its pressure balances that of the interstellar gas.

Some cautions need to be observed, though. First, the balancing pressure can only come from interstellar plasmas, from charged particles in interstellar space and from the magnetic fields which accompany them. Neutral particles--such as molecules of ordinary air--will see no obstacle: the magnetic field exerts no force on them, and solar wind particles are so far apart (centimeters or inches) that collisions practically never occur.

A fine example that the mainstream knows about these things, can explain them very well, and that it doesn't ignore plasma, as is claimed sometimes. What I think you are confusing is that the neutral interstellar particles are the one that can penetrate the heliosphere and can reach the Earth, while most (all?) charged particles are stopped at the heliopause or thereabouts.
See e.g. this article from the proceedings of the international society for optical engineering (hey, engineers who follow the mainstream theory!)
A last mainstream source:

The solar wind contains ions and electromagnetic fields swept out faster than sound (supersonically) to fill the heliosphere. Ions from the interstellar medium are deflected away beyond the heliopause and prevented from entering the inner heliosphere. Interstellar neutral atoms, however, travel freely through the solar wind, because they do not interact with the solar wind's magnetic fields.

[sol88]

Sorry my bad, I interpreted charged particles as being charged and not neutral and magnetic fields would be in conjunction with electric fields.

I'll try and read your links tonight so as to have a better understanding.

Still seems the mainstream asserts EM forces when it suits but totaly disregard it in the over cosmological picture, and as a lay person it just dosen't make sense.

Sol

[tusenfem]

Okay, this has already been written once in several mails, now it is collected in one concise message. Is the sun a ball of hot gas with fusion in the centre or is it a discharge according to Juergens? Well, let’s see what mainstream physics has to say about it.

Total Energy produced by the Sun in 1 second:

From the general mainstream model the fusion in the core of the sun produces 4.3 million tonnes (4.3 10⁹ kg) equivalent of energy per second so with the well known equation E = MC² (Thanks Albert !, E is energy, M is the totall mass and C is the velocity of light 3 10⁸ m/s) we can find the total power P:

P = 4.3 10⁹ x (3 10⁸)² / 1 second = 3.9 10²⁶ Joules/s

With an arbitrary voltage of a billion volts from the Sun and exterior space, according to Juergens in a “double layer” above the suns surface and P = UI (where U is the total potential drop in Volts and I is the total current in Amperes), we can calculate a current

I = P / U = 3.9 10²⁶ / 10⁹ = 3.9 10¹⁷ A.

So, now we come to the circuit around the sun, inflowing current in the equatorial plane and outflowing current along the poles of the sun, this all in accordance with Alfvén’s circuit model (see Cosmic Plasma, page 55, Figure III.7).

Learning from the Earth where the current sheet thickness is on the order of the Earth’s radius, therefore we will assume that the current flowing to the sun has a thickness on the order of the suns radius.

Now we look at what may be observed near Earth if indeed this current flows in the circuit, driving the energy output of the sun as in Juergens’ model.

For a plane current sheet we can estimate the magnetic field by using Maxwell's equations. One equation, Ampere's Law, says that the variation of the magnetic field produced by a current is given by:

curl B = mu₀ (J + epsilon₀ dE/dt),

here curl is an operator that basically takes the derivative of the magnetic field in all three cartesian coordinates. In the case when we have a sheet of current, we can simplify this equation. We assume time stationarity (the sun shines at basically the same rate without major variations so that is no real problem) which means that any time derivative, like dE/dt will be 0. Assuming an infinite sheet in the x and y direction there is only variation in z and the equation simplifies to:

dB/dz = mu₀ J,

and here we can make an estimate of the variation of the magnetic field from one side of the current sheet to the other by changing this differential into a difference dB/dz -> delta B / delta z. The delta B we do not know but the delta z is the thickness of the current sheet, so we find:

Delta B / L = mu₀ J,

where we know L, the radius of the sun (7 10⁸ m), and we can calculate J from the total current I (above) and saying that it flows through a “ribbon” of L wide and a circumference of 2 pi R_Earth-sun (1 AU = 1.5 10¹¹ m),

J = 3.9 10¹⁷ / (2 pi 1.5 10¹¹ 7 10⁸ = 6 10^-4 Amp/m²

and thus with mu₀ = 4 pi 10^-7 we find for the magnetic field near the Earth produced by that current system:

delta B = mu₀ J L = 0.5 Tesla

Now, what magnetic field strengt his measured near the Earth? We measure field in the nano-Tesla range (see e.g. data from the Cluster spacecraft in the solar wind (the middle part in the linked plot), so that means that this model is roughly 1 billion (American) 10⁹ times too strong, give or take a factor of 3!

And then other observations, e.g. by the Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun (here is a plot of the magnetic field strength measured by the mission from start to date), have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the outflowing currents.

I guess that basically puts the lid on Juergens’ model.

** started editing to add references and definitions **

[Nereid]

Thanks tusenfem.

Perhaps if you could edit your post, to add definitions of the terms, as well as add references to Juergens and Alfven.

It would then be a very nice, self-contained post that BAUT members (and others) can link to, in future discussions of EU ideas.

[Tim Thompson]

Any thoughts by mainstreamer on how this can occur in electrically neutral space?

You continue to show an extreme misunderstanding of mainstream science. If I have an electron, and a proton, they are both charged particles. But together, they are electrically neutral. The electrically neutral space of mainstream science is filled with free electrons & free protons, all of which are expected to take part in seriously electromagnetic interactions, all in electrically neutral space. Why would anyone think otherwise? It is not possible to have a serious discussion with you about anything until you make the effort to learn what the mainstream science really is, before deciding that it has to be wrong.

[Nereid]

Sorry my bad, I interpreted charged particles as being charged and not neutral and magnetic fields would be in conjunction with electric fields.

I'll try and read your links tonight so as to have a better understanding.

Still seems the mainstream asserts EM forces when it suits but totaly disregard it in the over cosmological picture, and as a lay person it just dosen't make sense.

Sol

Some of the best physicists the world has ever seen used words similar to 'it just doesn't make sense', refering to quantum theory.

And yet that theory is perhaps the most thoroughly tested of all scientific theories; it is certainly the most accurately tested.

It has been a very long time since 'making sense' was a useful criterion for judging scientific theories.

sol88, this is a science-based discussion forum, and a key fundamental for all ATM discussions is acceptance of the approaches used in modern science.

If you are not prepared to accept this fundamental, I respectfully suggest that BAUT is not a suitable place for you; if you would like to learn more about the nature of modern science, the role of theory, the match between 'reality' and science, etc, then BAUT has an excellent section for just such discussions - General Science.

[P.Asmah]

...this is a science-based discussion forum, and a key fundamental for all ATM discussions is acceptance of the approaches used in modern science...

Well, I for one do not approve of your inquisitorial approach to many ATM posters on here.

Here is an interesting site which addresses the need for freedom in scientific research. http://archivefreedom.org/

The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the scientific domain have been achieved by bold thinkers who perceived new and fruitful approaches that others failed to notice. If one had taken the ideas of these scientific geniuses who have been the promoters of modern science and submitted them to committees of specialists, there is no doubt that the latter would have viewed them as extravagant and would have discarded them for the very reason of their originality and profundity.

From an email exchange with Noam Comsky
http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Chomsky.html

Since you are a concerned academic and citizen, who has fought for years against injustice, I would like to bring to your attention the level of corruption and hypocrisy that has plagued the world of science, Physics in particular, in recent years . No wonder why this country ( USA ) is spiraling into Fascism.

There is an illicit and unfortunate censorship going on at the Los Alamos-Cornell electronic preprint archives. Such electronic archives are the *bloodline* of Physics research nowadays which has replaced journals in the dissemination of novel ideas.

It appears that there could be *hundreds* of scientists in the archives Black-List ( Cornell professor Paul Ginsparg's black-list ) reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Electronic-preprints from this black-list of scientists are being removed automatically and/or manually before they appear in the daily listings, irrespective of form, content, correctness and without a peer-review analysis.

[Gillianren]

Still seems the mainstream asserts EM forces when it suits but totaly disregard it in the over cosmological picture, and as a lay person it just dosen't make sense.

Makes total sense to this layperson. As near as I can work out (I was an English major, so the kind of big words used in physics are different from the big words I know, and my eyes glaze over at long strings of numbers even though I agree that they're necessary to any well-rounded physics theory), what the mainstream says is "some stuff is electric and some stuff isn't." Which makes total sense to me. After all, it's true of human technology, too, right? The difference between mechanical power and electric power or something. Also, my couch isn't electric. (Thankfully.)

[papageno]

Well, I for one do not approve of your inquisitorial approach to many ATM posters on here.

Without firmness in enforcing the rules, ATM proponents would get away with not addressing the issues.

Here is an interesting site which addresses the need for freedom in scientific research. http://archivefreedom.org/

Why not address the need of knowing what you want criticize?
Why do ATM proponents tend to display the Galileo syndrome?
Why don't they realize that Galileo actually knew very well the mainstream science of its days and could support his ideas with evidence?

[sol88]

Thanks for the link P.Asmah

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.Asmah
Well, I for one do not approve of your inquisitorial approach to many ATM posters on here.
Without firmness in enforcing the rules, ATM proponents would get away with not addressing the issues.

And the mainstreamers have to work within rigid and inflexible rules, this makes even less sense! How do we advance technolgicaly when this is how we go about it??

I like this quote seems to sum it up pretty well for this layperson

Our world is experiencing serious problems such as exponential population growth, environmental pollution, impending energy shortages, nuclear proliferation, and climatic change. We cannot afford to suppress the works of those seminal minds whose new ideas could revolutionize the way we interact with the world. What if a paper described the discovery of a new source of energy that could help to alleviate the coming energy crisis? Or, what if a paper brought to light a serious environmental hazard, which, if unheeded, would result in a substantial loss of life. And, what if arXiv.org moderators censored one such important paper because of a possible personal dislike of its author or because it conflicted with a theory they personally favored? Society cannot afford this kind of behavior.

In today's fast changing world it is not enough just to publish one's ideas in scientific journals, a process that can drag on from months to years until approved for publication. Rapid communication of all plausible new ideas to the academic community through an easily accessible internet archive is essential to the progress of science.

And not to try and scare any one too much but WTSHTF, say bye bye to your multi billion dollar funding

This planet can not survive the onslaught of humanity at the present pace and the staggering rate of resource consumption, if we can not find a tech fix out of it well....I'll leave the consequences to your very intelligent minds. There’s plenty of info out there now on the up coming geological energy shortages.

Hence I fear our only hope will be to try out new technologies based on the understanding that the dominant forces in the universe is electric/magnetic. Appears we just need to work on tapping in.

Mother nature was on the right track, Photosynthesis, some basic elements the right temp and a big swag of EM radiation, beautiful

But as Nereid stated

sol88, this is a science-based discussion forum, and a key fundamental for all ATM discussions is acceptance of the approaches used in modern science.

I fear our differences stem from the scientific data we are given (and maybe some that is withheld??) and our entrenched point of view/reference, remember I'm not talking aliens using moons as hotels, time travel or any host of ideas that stretch plausibility to the absurd, this is as members on this forum love to point out been known (plasma/EM) for a while (~100yrs) but was relegated to the back burner because of it's insignificance, it's time to abdicate King Gravity from the throne.

This is not to say gravity does not play an important role, it does but it is not the dominant force for getting "work" done.

But back to the case at hand the Electric Sun, the universe today (LINK) had a story on AKARI, the new Japanese infrared sky surveyor mission, the preliminary pictures from the EU point of view look remarkably like an Interstellar Birkeland current with some Z pinching going on, some apparently fairly recently in cosmological terms.

Sol88

[Van Rijn]

And the mainstreamers have to work within rigid and inflexible rules, this makes even less sense! How do we advance technolgicaly when this is how we go about it??

Well, that's the thing about science: It is based on objective evidence, logic and math. I'm sorry if those rigid rules are too much to you, but that's reality. Sure, fantasy can be fun to think about, we all have things we wish were true, but until you check your ideas against the hard light of reality, it won't get you anywhere.

The only things I've seen requested around here are (1) if you're presenting an ATM concept, please try to learn something of the well understood science in the field you are going up against and (2) show us something that actually does have some relevant evidence, logic, and math behind it. The "Mainstream = Bad" bit gets old, especially when it is the usual response to any request for actual numbers.

I used to find some of these ATM threads at least somewhat interesting, and the references by Tim and others often made up for the constant bickering, but this argument hasn't changed or advanced in any significant way for months.

[Tensor]

But back to the case at hand the Electric Sun, the universe today (LINK) had a story on AKARI, the new Japanese infrared sky surveyor mission, the preliminary pictures from the EU point of view look remarkably like an Interstellar Birkeland current with some Z pinching going on, some apparently fairly recently in cosmological terms.

How about a refutation of tusenfem's post? tusenfem, went to the trouble of actually specifying numbers and measured observations (that refutes an electric sun idea), and all you can come back with is an interpretation of a picture? That seems to be an awfully weak response.

[sol88]

I appreciate the time Tusenfem's took to reply to this thread in such an outstanding mathmatical way.

For me as a non mathmatician I can not refute his equations.

But where then, do these charged particles end up? remembering the article stated they where charged and not nuetral and that they were incomming?

Sol

[Tensor]

I appreciate the time Tusenfem's took to reply to this thread in such an outstanding mathmatical way.

For me as a non mathmatician I can not refute his equations.

Then how can you accept an electric sun idea or reject the mainstream ideas if you are a non mathematician and can't follow the math that supports or refutes either idea? We had someone here posting on the sun having a solid surface. No number, no predictions, just based on what he saw in a picture. What proper evidence leads you to think an electric sun idea is even viable?

But where then, do these charged particles end up? remembering the article stated they where charged and not nuetral and that they were incomming?

Incoming in what sense? From the article, it seems to me that incoming simply means they are traveling in the opposite direction from the stellar wind. Those "incoming" particles could hit the sun, hit any of the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, etc. or, miss any massive bodies entirely. What is the quantity of these particles? Are there equal amounts of positively and negatively charged particles or is there a difference? And, as you asked, where do they end up? Do they penetrate to the sun, or do they miss the inner solar system completely? These are the types of questions that should be asked by Electric sun proponents. I really fail to see how such a non-quantatative article could be used either for an electric sun model, or against a mainstream model.

[Nereid]

Well, I for one do not approve of your inquisitorial approach to many ATM posters on here.

As I mentioned in reply to another poster, in a different ATM thread, if you would like to start a thread, in the About BAUT section, proposing a change in the (ATM) rules, then please do so.

Unless and until there is a change in BAUT's (ATM) rules, I fully intend to continue challenging ATM ideas, as presented in ATM threads, by BAUT members.

Further, I will continue to do so by seeking specific, concrete answers to direct, pertinent questions about the claims made in the ATM posts. Those questions will be directed at exposing the extent to which the ATM ideas, as presented are
a) internally consistent
b) consistent with (other) scientific theories where the respective domains of applicability overlap
c) (above all) consistent with (good, relevant) experimental and observational results.

Here is an interesting site which addresses the need for freedom in scientific research. http://archivefreedom.org/

From an email exchange with Noam Comsky
http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Chomsky.html

Interesting.

In what way(s) is any of that inconsistent with BAUT's ATM policies? With the approach that I have declared that I intend to take, wrt challenging ATM ideas (as presented in ATM threads)?

[Gillianren]

Tensor, that's not merely exactly what I was going to say about understanding, it is exactly what I have said, repeatedly.

I don't understand the math, either. (Look! It's a really long string of numbers!) However, all that proves is that I don't have the awareness of the subject to call the mainstream wrong. A lot of science, from my slightly-higher-educated-in-science-than-the-average standpoint, is pretty counterintuitive. I just don't get it. This means, among other things, that I'm not versed in it and therefore not qualified to call it wrong.

In fact, even the one field where I consider myself reasonably educated is full of things that to me are counterintuitive. Like mudstone. It's a rock, but you can still see that it basically looks like dried mud, only it doesn't just dissolve if you drop it in water. That's just weird--but it also happens to be true. I'm sure there's a lot in, you know, physics and astronomy that's the same way to people with the same "two quarters of it in college" understanding that I have in geology. In fact, I'm given to understand (thank you, Bill Bryson!) that a lot of professionals think certain things in at least physics are weird, even if they've been working with them for decades.

So it looks odd to you as a lay person. Fine. So try to understand what the mainstream's actually saying before you call them wrong, because I have to say, if you haven't put in the time to try, it's probably not the mainstream that's wrong.

[galacsi]

Okay, this has already been written once in several mails, now it is collected in one concise message. Is the sun a ball of hot gas with fusion in the centre or is it a discharge according to Juergens?

Computed (By Tusenfem) magentic field L = 0.5 Tesla

Now, what magnetic field strengt his measured near the Earth? We measure field in the nano-Tesla range, so that means that this model is roughly 1 billion (American) 10⁹ times too strong, give or take a factor of 3!

And then other observations, e.g. by the Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun, have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the outflowing currents.

I guess that basically puts the lid on Juergens

Mail troncated two time when editing it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I gave up today !!!!

[papageno]

Well, I for one do not approve of your inquisitorial approach to many ATM posters on here.

Without firmness in enforcing the rules, ATM proponents would get away with not addressing the issues.

And the mainstreamers have to work within rigid and inflexible rules, this makes even less sense! How do we advance technolgicaly when this is how we go about it??

What is your first-hand experience in research?
How exactly do you know those rules are not there to ensure that ideas are backed up with proper evidence?

I like this quote seems to sum it up pretty well for this layperson

Our world is experiencing serious problems such as exponential population growth, environmental pollution, impending energy shortages, nuclear proliferation, and climatic change. We cannot afford to suppress the works of those seminal minds whose new ideas could revolutionize the way we interact with the world. What if a paper described the discovery of a new source of energy that could help to alleviate the coming energy crisis? Or, what if a paper brought to light a serious environmental hazard, which, if unheeded, would result in a substantial loss of life. And, what if arXiv.org moderators censored one such important paper because of a possible personal dislike of its author or because it conflicted with a theory they personally favored? Society cannot afford this kind of behavior.

In today's fast changing world it is not enough just to publish one's ideas in scientific journals, a process that can drag on from months to years until approved for publication. Rapid communication of all plausible new ideas to the academic community through an easily accessible internet archive is essential to the progress of science.

Oh yes! The World's problems are all ArXiV.org's fault!
As if scientists were responsible for the policies of the governments.

Laypersons, such as yourself, seem to prefer not taking upon themselves the responsibility of understanding how things work and then make decisions based on the knowledge acquired.
Instead, they give the responsibility of taking the decisions to others and then whine if things are not perfect, according to their personal worldview.

And not to try and scare any one too much but WTSHTF, say bye bye to your multi billion dollar funding

Ah yes! It must always be about the money.

This planet can not survive the onslaught of humanity at the present pace and the staggering rate of resource consumption, if we can not find a tech fix out of it well....I'll leave the consequences to your very intelligent minds. There’s plenty of info out there now on the up coming geological energy shortages.

Ah yes, scientists have to find the magic technology so that you can go on living as you wish without preoccupations, whether the Universe works that way or not.
Just don't take any responsibility of deciding.

Hence I fear our only hope will be to try out new technologies based on the understanding that the dominant forces in the universe is electric/magnetic. Appears we just need to work on tapping in.

Wishful thinking.
You just want to avoid putting some effort into making things better: let the others do the hard work!

Mother nature was on the right track, Photosynthesis, some basic elements the right temp and a big swag of EM radiation, beautiful

Do you think that the Sun would be emitting that radiation without the nuclear fusion made possible by its own gravity, the same gravity that keeps the planets and satellites orbiting?

But as Nereid stated

sol88, this is a science-based discussion forum, and a key fundamental for all ATM discussions is acceptance of the approaches used in modern science.

I fear our differences stem from the scientific data we are given (and maybe some that is withheld??)...

The Big Bad Conspiracy of the Evil Mainstream Scientists!
It cannot possibly be that the Universe does not work as you wish, can it?

...and our entrenched point of view/reference...

But in the "Electric comets" thread you were complaining about mainstream scientists changing their theories!
So which is it?

...remember I'm not talking aliens using moons as hotels, time travel or any host of ideas that stretch plausibility to the absurd, this is as members on this forum love to point out been known (plasma/EM) for a while (~100yrs) but was relegated to the back burner because of it's insignificance, it's time to abdicate King Gravity from the throne.

Gee, mainstream scientists explain the orbits of planets in terms of gravity, therefore they explain everything else in the Universe in terms of gravity.
You would benefit from spending more time in the "Questions & Answer", "Astronomy" and "General Science"; or, even better, go spend some time in a university library.

This is not to say gravity does not play an important role, it does but it is not the dominant force for getting "work" done.

I am still waiting for you to present an EU-based theory that includes a quantitative treatment and can explain phenomena better than mainstream theories.

But back to the case at hand the Electric Sun, the universe today (LINK) had a story on AKARI, the new Japanese infrared sky surveyor mission, the preliminary pictures from the EU point of view look remarkably like an Interstellar Birkeland current with some Z pinching going on, some apparently fairly recently in cosmological terms.

Oh yes, the old "my personal and unexperienced interpretation of a picture trumps all known and established physics" method.

[Tensor]

Tensor, that's not merely exactly what I was going to say about understanding, it is exactly what I have said, repeatedly.

Great minds think alike, right? I know, I've read your posts.

I don't understand the math, either. (Look! It's a really long string of numbers!)

Hehehehehe, don't forget all those fancy Greek letters too.

However, all that proves is that I don't have the awareness of the subject to call the mainstream wrong. A lot of science, from my slightly-higher-educated-in-science-than-the-average standpoint, is pretty counterintuitive. I just don't get it. This means, among other things, that I'm not versed in it and therefore not qualified to call it wrong.

Again, well said.

In fact, I'm given to understand (thank you, Bill Bryson!) that a lot of professionals think certain things in at least physics are weird, even if they've been working with them for decades.

Yep. But, that doesn't mean that those certain things can't be used or worked with.

So it looks odd to you as a lay person. Fine. So try to understand what the mainstream's actually saying before you call them wrong, because I have to say, if you haven't put in the time to try, it's probably not the mainstream that's wrong.

Hehehehehe, this looks like something I've repeatedly said. If you want to criticize a mainstream theory, make sure you understand that theory. After all, how can someone criticize a theory, when what they are criticizing, about the theory, is not part of that theory?

[papageno]

I think this quote from a post made by JayUtah in the "Conspiracy Theories" forum can shed some light on the behaviour of certain ATM proponents:

Arguments of the form, "You say X happened, but you don't have evidence to show that Y didn't happen instead," deny the inductive leap. When a jury convicts someone, they acknowledge that it's possible that all the evidence against him could still be true, but that he is nevertheless innocent.

Most conspiracy theories taken the approach of trying to widen the inductive leap required in the prevalent theory. That is, they say, "There are so many anomalies and inconsistencies that you really have to stretch your imagination in order to believe that X happened." Or, as I sometimes call it, the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) approach. The goal is to so erode faith in X that any alternative Y, no matter how ludicrous, starts to look better by comparison. Often Y can explain individual anomalies with much greater facility, but that isn't sufficient as we discover below.

Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution. As long as conspiracy theories simply "call for more research" or assert that "it remains an open question," their proponents will continue to enjoy attention.

As we discover, the alleged "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" almost always turn out to be a failure to meet the ignorant and ill-founded expectations of the conspiracy theorists. And so it's tempting to spend a lot of time arguing whether those expectations are right or wrong. Hog-heaven for the conspiracist. By quibbling over just how wide that inductive leap is, the argument becomes endlessly subjective and fails to acknowledge that the absolute width of the leap is utterly irrelevant.

Whether one's inductive leap is trivial or strenuous is irrelevant if it's still the shortest one. That is, the theory to which we rationally subscribe is always the best theory, regardless of how objectively good it is. If the inductive leap for one theory is long, we can still hold to it if the leap in other theories is still longer.

The only meaningful challenge to one line of induction is another line of induction whose inductive leap is shorter. The question is thus not that X isn't proved sufficiently to remove the inductive leap altogether and thus reject Y categorically. It isn't that X's inductive leap is so long that you're just better off believing Y on general principles. The question -- the only proper question, that is -- is whether the inductive leap associated with Y is greater or lesser than X's leap.

That's why you never get a coherent Y out of conspiracists. That's why they'll have individual scenarios that explain individual anomalies (thermite on the steel, missiles at the Pentagon, etc.) but no coherent full-scale theory. Why? Because by giving you just bits and pieces, or by claiming they don't have or need a Y because they're only "raising issues", they don't give you anything whose inductive leap can be measured against X's.

It's blindness, for sure, but it's blindness in the sense that they don't understand why their approach will never be given equal consideration alongside a testable theory.

Just change "conspiracist" to "ATM proponent".

[sol88]

Oh yes! The World's problems are all ArXiV.org's fault!
As if scientists were responsible for the policies of the governments.

Laypersons, such as yourself, seem to prefer not taking upon themselves the responsibility of understanding how things work and then make decisions based on the knowledge acquired.
Instead, they give the responsibility of taking the decisions to others and then whine if things are not perfect, according to their personal worldview.

No not ArXIV.org's fault, just an indication of how the PTB run this world and as you quoted

Ah yes! It must always be about the money.

it is ALWAYS about the money. and scientist, if they need the funding, must adhere to what The PTB say or the funding is pulled

and since you've moved of topic:

Ah yes, scientists have to find the magic technology so that you can go on living as you wish without preoccupations, whether the Universe works that way or not.
Just don't take any responsibility of deciding.

I take great responsibility on my decisions and how they affect me and the world around me, I really wish more people would. It is very arrogant for to "know" my life philosophy. Science and human greed got us into this mess, if Tesla had been given a fair go back in the early 20th century instead of the bankers, I'd wager things would be vastly different than today.

By the way how's the price of fuel where you live?? What legacy are we to leave for our children and theirs? To consume resources to we kill ourselves off? The natural world is of no consequence to us humans?

he Big Bad Conspiracy of the Evil Mainstream Scientists!
It cannot possibly be that the Universe does not work as you wish, can it?

No conspiracy, they just need to take their blinkers off and accept we are all part of the system. Nothing operates in isolation.

And as you say

Wishful thinking.
You just want to avoid putting some effort into making things better: let the others do the hard work!

We agree on that, Papageno, I really wish my kids will have a future that does not involve fighting over the dwindling resources that we have made essential for our western way of life.

The only effort, as you put it, I can make to make things better is trying to understand "stuff", but as you can imagine with the cost of everything rising, two kids and really struggling to make ends meet, it is very hard, very.

And now back to the topic at hand, you wrote

Quote:
Originally Posted by sol88
Mother nature was on the right track, Photosynthesis, some basic elements the right temp and a big swag of EM radiation, beautiful
Do you think that the Sun would be emitting that radiation without the nuclear fusion made possible by its own gravity, the same gravity that keeps the planets and satellites orbiting?

Yes, have you ever grown plants under lights? the most "sunlike" globe for the job is a Sodium vapor high intensity discharge light. from Wikipedia

HID lamps have also made indoor gardening practical, especially for plants that require a good deal of high intensity sunlight, like vegetables and flowers.

These lamps, HID's, mimic the suns spectra and some higher end radiation to boot. (LINK)

Gee, mainstream scientists explain the orbits of planets in terms of gravity, therefore they explain everything else in the Universe in terms of gravity.

and therein lays, I believe, the problem. Lets make the round peg fit the square hole by trying to bash it in.

Then

I am still waiting for you to present an EU-based theory that includes a quantitative treatment and can explain phenomena better than mainstream theories.

I happen to agree with EU theory on the electric sun, presented HERE for instance I've never heard of the mainstreams interpretation of the inverted temperature trace of the Sun, have you seen something?

And now we know that the Sun is indeed surrounded by an equatorial torus (as shown in the polar UV image here).

Ideas? FULL LINK

More on the same subject HERE

Sol

[PhantomWolf]

the most "sunlike" globe for the job is a Sodium vapor high intensity discharge light.

These lamps, HID's, mimic the suns spectra and some higher end radiation to boot.

No. Having worked with both Sodium and Mercury lamps I can tell you that they don't mimic the sun's spectra. Their spectra are a set of distinct lines with large areas missed out.

Sodium
Mercury

Compare this with the sun's which is a nearly continuous spectrum.

edited to add: Looking at the other elements on the link I have for the sun, Uranium is probably one of the closest overall. Perhaps it's real a Fission reaction.

[sol88]

No. Having worked with both Sodium and Mercury lamps I can tell you that they don't mimic the sun's spectra. Their spectra are a set of distinct lines with large areas missed out.

Sodium
Mercury

Compare this with the sun's which is a nearly continuous spectrum.

edited to add: Looking at the other elements on the link I have for the sun, Uranium is probably one of the closest overall. Perhaps it's real a Fission reaction.

So it would be interesting to add these elements to HID globe and then see what happens?

I take it that a thermonuclear expolsion also shows the Sun's spectra?

Sol

[PhantomWolf]

I take it that a thermonuclear expolsion also shows the Sun's spectra?

I might be wrong, but I sort of doubt anyone has actually done spectrum analysis on a Nuclear blast.

[tusenfem]

I happen to agree with EU theory on the electric sun, presented HERE for instance I've never heard of the mainstreams interpretation of the inverted temperature trace of the Sun, have you seen something?
Sol

What inverted temperature trace of the sun? There is the sun with its temperature, increasing as you go inwards, and there is the corona with its temperature increasing when you go outwards.

Want to read some of the mainstream ideas about solar coronal heating? Then just go HERE where you will find a looooooong list of research on the temperature of the corona.

Just because Thunderbolds says that mainstream has no idea, does not mean that it is so.

At Wiki there is a short description of the two main processes involved in heating the corona.

Quote:
And now we know that the Sun is indeed surrounded by an equatorial torus (as shown in the polar UV image here).
Ideas? FULL LINK

Unless, Thornhill explains what the picture is acutally showing, we have no idea what is represent. Which instrument, which wavelength, what is the color scale etc. etc.

Also, apart from lots and lots of words, Thornhill is very sparse on any quantitative information. EU/PU works on Alfven and Peratt, which have written books full of equations, and nonetheless its supporters cannot even write down a quantitative model.

I ask the EU/PU proponents to prove my post wrong (find the error that is in there, .......... no, I will just tell you what it is, Juergens assumes 10 billion volts, so how does that change my results?).

[JohnW]

I take it that a thermonuclear expolsion also shows the Sun's spectra?

Why would we expect them to be the same? The Sun is primarily powered by proton-proton reactions, but bombs use deuterium and/or tritium, which go off at lower temperatures and pressures. Plus we're not seeing the Sun's thermonuclear reactions directly - they take place below many, many miles of opaque atmosphere.

[papageno]

Oh yes! The World's problems are all ArXiV.org's fault!
As if scientists were responsible for the policies of the governments.

Laypersons, such as yourself, seem to prefer not taking upon themselves the responsibility of understanding how things work and then make decisions based on the knowledge acquired.
Instead, they give the responsibility of taking the decisions to others and then whine if things are not perfect, according to their personal worldview.

No not ArXIV.org's fault, just an indication of how the PTB run this world and as you quoted

Ah yes! It must always be about the money.

it is ALWAYS about the money. and scientist, if they need the funding, must adhere to what The PTB say or the funding is pulled

It is always about the money in your limited imagination of uninformed layman.
The PTB are elected by people like you.

Now answer these questions:

What is your first-hand experience in research?
How exactly do you know those rules are not there to ensure that ideas are backed up with proper evidence?

and since you've moved of topic:

Ah yes, scientists have to find the magic technology so that you can go on living as you wish without preoccupations, whether the Universe works that way or not.
Just don't take any responsibility of deciding.

I take great responsibility on my decisions and how they affect me and the world around me, I really wish more people would. It is very arrogant for to "know" my life philosophy. Science and human greed got us into this mess, if Tesla had been given a fair go back in the early 20th century instead of the bankers, I'd wager things would be vastly different than today.

Why do you blame science?
You do realize that it is not scientists who decide the policies of governments, don't you?
The same governments that are elected by people like you.
Remember the mess about the Bush administration trying to cover up the results obtained by NASA researchers about climate change? Search The BA's blog.

By the way how's the price of fuel where you live?? What legacy are we to leave for our children and theirs? To consume resources to we kill ourselves off? The natural world is of no consequence to us humans?

If Italians had not believed the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt of the anti-scientific and anti-nuclear propaganda, we would now be much better off.
But then, as long as long-term policies are left to the decisions of uninformed laymen, what do you expect?

The Big Bad Conspiracy of the Evil Mainstream Scientists!
It cannot possibly be that the Universe does not work as you wish, can it?

No conspiracy, they just need to take their blinkers off and accept we are all part of the system. Nothing operates in isolation.

You assume that it is scientists having blinkers on...

And as you say

Wishful thinking.
You just want to avoid putting some effort into making things better: let the others do the hard work!

We agree on that, Papageno, I really wish my kids will have a future that does not involve fighting over the dwindling resources that we have made essential for our western way of life.

The only effort, as you put it, I can make to make things better is trying to understand "stuff", but as you can imagine with the cost of everything rising, two kids and really struggling to make ends meet, it is very hard, very.

And it was hard for scientists as well. Or do you think we did not work and study to understand "stuff"?
Isn't it possible that they might understand "stuff" better than you, and see clearly what is wrong with EU based theories?

Do you think that the Sun would be emitting that radiation without the nuclear fusion made possible by its own gravity, the same gravity that keeps the planets and satellites orbiting?

Yes, have you ever grown plants under lights? the most "sunlike" globe for the job is a Sodium vapor high intensity discharge light. from Wikipedia

HID lamps have also made indoor gardening practical, especially for plants that require a good deal of high intensity sunlight, like vegetables and flowers.

These lamps, HID's, mimic the suns spectra and some higher end radiation to boot.

Isn't it weird? When I did spectroscopy lab, the sodium lamp had yellow light, but it did not show the same spectrum as the Sun.
Why don't you stop using Wikipedia? Hyperphysics is more reliable.

Now, answer my question:

Do you think that the Sun would be emitting that radiation without the nuclear fusion made possible by its own gravity, the same gravity that keeps the planets and satellites orbiting?

Gee, mainstream scientists explain the orbits of planets in terms of gravity, therefore they explain everything else in the Universe in terms of gravity.

and therein lays, I believe, the problem. Lets make the round peg fit the square hole by trying to bash it in.

Except that it is a strawman.
If you had bothered to look up what mainstream really says, you would know that Astrophysics is not limited to gravity.

I am still waiting for you to present an EU-based theory that includes a quantitative treatment and can explain phenomena better than mainstream theories.

I happen to agree with EU theory on the electric sun, presented HERE for instance I've never heard of the mainstreams interpretation of the inverted temperature trace of the Sun, have you seen something?

tusenfem addressed this strawman.
I suggest you stop relying on EU websites to tell you what mainstream science says.

The BAUT board has nice "Question & Answers", "Astronomy" and "General Science" fora.

[Nereid]

The following are all from posts by sol88, in this thread (post numbers added):

(#1)So how do the observations fit with the Mainstream model in relation to the EU model?

(#12)How do we advance technolgicaly when this is how we go about it??
[snip]
This planet can not survive the onslaught of humanity at the present pace and the staggering rate of resource consumption, if we can not find a tech fix out of it well....I'll leave the consequences to your very intelligent minds. There’s plenty of info out there now on the up coming geological energy shortages.

Hence I fear our only hope will be to try out new technologies based on the understanding that the dominant forces in the universe is electric/magnetic. Appears we just need to work on tapping in.

Mother nature was on the right track, Photosynthesis, some basic elements the right temp and a big swag of EM radiation, beautiful
[snip]
But back to the case at hand the Electric Sun, the universe today (LINK) had a story on AKARI, the new Japanese infrared sky surveyor mission, the preliminary pictures from the EU point of view look remarkably like an Interstellar Birkeland current with some Z pinching going on, some apparently fairly recently in cosmological terms.

(#15)But where then, do these charged particles end up? remembering the article stated they where charged and not nuetral and that they were incomming?

(#23)But where then, do these charged particles end up? remembering the article stated they where charged and not nuetral and that they were incomming?
[snip]
Ideas? FULL LINK

(#25)So it would be interesting to add these elements to HID globe and then see what happens?

I take it that a thermonuclear expolsion also shows the Sun's spectra?

A quick summary.

This thread was started by sol88, as a thread presenting the EU case for the Electric Sun. Per this and this post, all new threads on EU topics are to be focussed, on the specific EU claims within the (narrow) scope of the thread.

This thread contained a quantitative, specific debunking of the "Electric Sun" idea (here, by tusenfem).

sol88's response to the debunking of the Electric Sun idea is in post #15:

I appreciate the time Tusenfem's took to reply to this thread in such an outstanding mathmatical way.

For me as a non mathmatician I can not refute his equations.

No BAUT poster has offered any refutation of tusenfem's debunking.

I will keep this thread open for another week, in case any BAUT member wishes to offer a refutation of tusenfem's debunking, or to present an alternative EU case for the "Electric Sun" idea.

If, at the end of the week, no EU case (for the Electric Sun idea) has been presented, it will be considered "long debunked", and any further reference to it, in support of EU ideas, will be considered a direct violation of BAUT's rules.

sol88, many of your questions are good, and I suspect many people would be interested in learning the answers, per standard astrophysics. I encourage you to present the good questions as new threads, in BAUT's Q&A section.