Electric Sun

[TheFonz]

You have simply replaced one source of energy that you fail to understand with a new source of energy that you claim you cannot even find.

What do you mean I don’t understand it? They still haven’t even discovered dark matter so I don’t know where you get off claiming dark energy is any crazier. It’s based on the idea that they don’t emit electromagnetic radiation, which dark energy doesn’t either. Oops, guess you forgot the mainstream is calling for dark energy too, but I see you like to be selective when you choose which facts to remember. Oh well, once again I see how rigid your thinking is. You can’t even tie all those facts in your head together; get a “flow” of everything going.

Heeey, check this out:
Metal in planets depends on their stars
I wonder why that is? Gee. “Oh so where do the heavy elements come from, HUH?”

Here’s another good article if you need help understanding the concept. “Oh so where do the heavy elements come from, HUH?”

@"[AAAS

(http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0218habitable.shtml)"]Turnbull’s candidate stars had to have at least 50 per cent of the iron content of the Sun. Stars with higher metal content also tend to reside in more peaceful orbits in the plane of the galaxy, Turnbull said. She also chose stars that, like our Sun, reside on the “main sequence” of stellar evolution. No red giants or white dwarfs allowed.

While her criteria are clearly Sun-centric, Turnbull said they make sense. “We are intentionally biased toward stars that are like the Sun,” she said. Like the Sun, such stars tend to be toward the brighter range in luminosity and are more likely to live long enough for life-supporting planets to form.

“These are places I’d want to live if God were to put our planet around another star,” Turnbull said.

OoOooh, peaceful orbits. That’s where God puts 'em when he makes 'em.

So what about those nukes? Why is it we could figure out how to split an atom almost 70 years ago on paper, yet 70 years later with BILLION dollar satellites in orbit we can’t figure out something as simple as lightning? HAHAHAHA, right guys.

In recent years, removing and burning the oil has served its purpose, and this is why it was critical for the powers that be to prevent free energy methods or 600 mile per gallon engines. There is also a reason why they have detonated thousands of nuclear weapons since their discovery as “tests.” The nucleus is the “empty core” surrounded by the hard shell of electrons. When the atoms are split, their electrons kick up into high orbit and absorb a TON of etheral energy.

This is felt by the electromagnetic pulse, which is much more like the explosion from a vacuum tube rupturing than a balloon popping.

[Dudeman007]

[quote}In recent years, removing and burning the oil has served its purpose, and this is why it was critical for the powers that be to prevent free energy methods or 600 mile per gallon engines. There is also a reason why they have detonated thousands of nuclear weapons since their discovery as “tests.” The nucleus is the “empty core” surrounded by the hard shell of electrons. When the atoms are split, their electrons kick up into high orbit and absorb a TON of etheral energy.[/quote]

Hard shell of electrons? Didn’t they teach you in high school (assuming you made it that far) about Rutherford’s gold foil experiment where he proved that atoms are 99.99999999999% (9x10^-13) empty space? And when you split an atom they don’t absorb thermal energy, they release obscene amounts of it!

If there is some sort of energy or ether as you call it that is able to produce electromagnetic fields in tornadoes and hurricanes as well as power the sun that shines on us, then wouldn’t there be some way of detecting it? Our planet travels 360 degrees around the sun. You’d think at some point we’d cross through that energy. If its coming from the sun’s axis then wouldn’t all the stars spin on the same axis? There’s alot more holes in this theory than just about anything I’ve ever heard of.

[TheFonz]

Hard shell of electrons? Didn’t they teach you in high school (assuming you made it that far) about Rutherford’s gold foil experiment where he proved that atoms are 99.99999999999% (9x10^-13) empty space? And when you split an atom they don’t absorb thermal energy, they release obscene amounts of it!

Oh you sure showed me. What is our solar system? Mostly empty space, but it looks surprisingly like an atom. They don’t release large amounts of thermal energy, they absorb obscene amounts of etheral energy a lot of which heats up the surroundings. Of course you even doubt all the rumors of ether from ancient times, and all the signs for its existence nowadays. As the ether pours into our Earth, it heats up. As it poured into the newly formed elements of the nuclear reaction, they heated up as well. Tis the nature of these things.

We got BILLION dollar satellites in space, and we’re supposed to not know how lightning works yet? :smack: Riiiiight.

[TheFonz]

Besides, what the hell are the atoms releasing if they’re 99.999999% empty space? Heat energy? What the hell is that? Is it invisible? :smack:

Man, my response to your question is right inside your own question but you’re just repeating the same damn things you learned in school without ever thinking about what they mean. Way to go Dude.

[scr4]

If you want to claim your theory is better than the mainstream theory, you need to show that it describes observatins better. So please describe your model for how the solar wind is accelerated. Please account for the fact that solar wind contains both electrons and positrons; describe the electric field structure necessary to generate the observed solar wind, and suggest how such a field structure is formed. And suggest what observations we can do to confirm the existance of such a structure.

Also, why do you say mainstream scientists need to use “dark energy” to explain things? Can you give me an example? I am a mainstream scientist and I’m not familiar with the concept.

[nameless]

[Quote=TheFonz]
We got BILLION dollar satellites in space, and we’re supposed to not know how lightning works yet? Riiiiight.
[/Quote]

Why the hell do you keep saying this? Clearly, these satellites are functional and effective, so why does whether or not we understand lightning have any bearing on them? I’m honestly not sure what it is you’re trying to say here.

Are you now also proposing a new model of the atom? I mean this is really something. So, according to you, the nucleus of an atom is hollow and surrounded by a hard electron shell? How is a nucleus, which is a nested amalgam of smaller particles, also hollow? How are electrons, which have been shown to surround the nucleus in clouds in a probablistic way defined by wave functions, acting as a shell?

[Quote=TheFonz]
Heat energy? What the hell is that? Is it invisible?
[/Quote]

Are you for real? Measurements of temperature represent an average value for the molecular kinetic energy of the matter being measured. That is, molecules move constantly; in objects with high temperature, this kinetic energy is greater than in objects with low temperature.

If I were a particularly disingenuous individual, I might take this opportunity to say–

There are BILLIONS of sources available on what thermal energy is, none of which you’ve apparently read, and you’re supposed to have a unified theory of the physical universe? Riiiiiiight.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
What do you mean I don’t understand it? They still haven’t even discovered dark matter so I don’t know where you get off claiming dark energy is any crazier.
[/QUOTE]
You are missing the point.

You ridicule mainstream science, (which is based on observations and analyses of hundreds of scientists, each challenging the other, so that no one’s work can be simply inserted into the knowledge base without some level of demonstration), because current physics claims that there is matter in the universe that we cannot see. (Actually, it is simply an issue of matter in the universe that is neither hot enough to generate its own light or reflective enough to bounce light from other sources over billions of miles to reach our instruments (yet).)

As a substitute for this, you propose a totally different solution that has not been examined, challenged, or corrected by anyone but the people who want to believe it in the first place that requires massive amounts of energy to pass though the sun (and our world?), fewer than 100 million miles from us that we cannot detect, even though it is the same sort of energy that we manpulate daily to keep our technology moving.

In other words, to use a medical analogy, you ridicule the germ theory of disease (because no one can actually observe bacteria) and replace it with the theory of humors (which are also invisible to the eye). Given that germ theory and nuclear physics have mathematics, working theories, and experimentation in support of them, there is no reason to throw them all away to chase some other odd claim that has no math, no predictive theories, and no experimental evidence.

On further reading I see

In recent years, removing and burning the oil has served its purpose, and this is why it was critical for the powers that be to prevent free energy methods or 600 mile per gallon engines.

that you are a garden variety conspiracist, as well.

With odd and fundamentally untrue statements such as

What is our solar system? Mostly empty space, but it looks surprisingly like an atom.

(Hint: It “looks” nothing like an atom) to support your beliefs, I’ll let others spar with you until you allow your propensity for personal insults to hget you banned.

[TheFonz]

You ridicule mainstream science, (which is based on observations and analyses of hundreds of scientists, each challenging the other, so that no one’s work can be simply inserted into the knowledge base without some level of demonstration), because current physics claims that there is matter in the universe that we cannot see. (Actually, it is simply an issue of matter in the universe that is neither hot enough to generate its own light or reflective enough to bounce light from other sources over billions of miles to reach our instruments (yet).)

Not always Tom, there are many perfect areas where we can see things just fine, and detect even the non-luminous objects through “wobbles” in the luminous ones.

Yet, I can’t help but notice that your longwinded statements amount to nothing, and are simply argumentum ad populum (thanks for that one, whoever it was). YOU got no understanding of the science, you simply rely on other to know it for you. If so many of these scientists believe it well it must be true!

You never answered my single, simply question: what is it the atoms are releasing???

[nameless]

TheFonz I refer you to this .pdf on how fission generates heat. It is short and basic, and I know you don’t like to read mainstream scientific stuff anymore since it totally kills your buzz, man, but it directly answers your question. It is somewhat incorrect to think of heat as though it were analogous to electromagnetic radiation–heat is simply the kinetic energy of atoms. That’s it. Atoms stike other atoms, and this kinetic energy (which we percieve as heat) is transferred.

[Menocchio]

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
You never answered my single, simply question: what is it the atoms are releasing???
[/QUOTE]
Themselves. When an atom is split, the resulting parts take off with incredible energy (that is, they’re moving at increible speeds). Two atoms and free neutrons. These neutrons go on to fuse with other atoms, causing a chain reaction.

But the useful product of a nuclear reaction comes in the form of photons released by the reaction, usually in the form of gamma rays. These gamma rays create enormous heat when aborbed by other matter. The kinetic energy of the other particles also contributes to the heat.

They also release other atomic fragments such as alpha and beta particles (and yes, beta particles are free electrons)

This is all quite well understood. Most research and tests in the area are not on the basic principles, but on how to best exploit the process for weapons and generators.

It strikes me that much of your reasoning is based on the principle that there is a correspondance between souls, lighting, and stars. That the workings of one is simple the same as the other in macrocosm or microcosm. This is a very old concept, and is usually associated with magical practices such as alchemy and astrology. It’s been thoroughly dismissed by modern scientists.

And with good reason: while philosophically attractive, it just doesn’t make sense when examines empiracally. Atoms and galaxies exist in the same physical universe and are subject to the same physical laws, but the scales are so utterly different that they can’t be considered analogous to one another. The strong nuclear force matters barely at all to a galaxy, nor gravity to an atom.

[Smeghead]

[QUOTE=Smeghead]
Wait, wait, wait, hang on. From what I can gather, your theory relies heavily on dark energy and/or dark matter. So how exactly can you go sneering at the mainstream scientists when they supposedly use it as well?
[/QUOTE]

So we’ll just add this to the list of questions you’re ignoring, then.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Heeey, check this out:
Metal in planets depends on their stars
I wonder why that is? Gee. “Oh so where do the heavy elements come from, HUH?”
[/QUOTE]

That says there’s a correlation (not a dependency) between the metal content of a particular class of planet (that has a mass of at least 110 Earths and orbits very close to its star) and its star.

Current theory, supported by lots of evidence, is that heavy metals in this solar system are the product of a long-destroyed supernova that ejected the matter, forming a nebula. When our current star formed, its gravity pulled this nebula into orbit around itself, with the heavier elements drawn closer and eventually forming the so-called “terrestrial” planets (Mercury through Mars and arguably the asteroids). Lighter elements orbited further away, eventually forming the gas giants. The heavy elements on Earth are not dependent on our star, but some long-dead double-star that sacrificed itself performing the heavy fusion to our benefit.

I’m sure people with better astronomy knowledge than myself can contribute some corrections and clarifications to the above summary, which I believe is essentially correct, and I invite them to do so.

[TheFonz]

Sorry to kill YOUR buzz, but something is actually accelerating the reaction. Oh look here, it says it releases heat, OK. OOOh, U-235 has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron if the neutron is moving slowly. Hmmm, sounds like something trying to soak up an object of a different charge. If it tries to move in too fast it’ll “bounce off” like some meteors would if they were made of heavier elements. Instead most of them explode, although I’ve heard that some appear to fly back out. I’ll try to find a link.

Oh well, sorry if you don’t understand… they don’t just make energy themselves. In breaking apart they draw in the ether, the dark energy, from their surroundings.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Sorry to kill YOUR buzz, but something is actually accelerating the reaction. Oh look here, it says it releases heat, OK. OOOh, U-235 has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron if the neutron is moving slowly. Hmmm, sounds like something trying to soak up an object of a different charge. If it tries to move in too fast it’ll “bounce off” like some meteors would if they were made of heavier elements. Instead most of them explode, although I’ve heard that some appear to fly back out. I’ll try to find a link.
[/quote]

Well, yes, and catching a softball is a lot easier than catching a bullet. The bullet may, in fact, cause lethal injury (i.e. fission) and/or “bounce off” of dense bone structures, if one were to make a macroscopic analogy.

[nameless]

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Sorry to kill YOUR buzz, but something is actually accelerating the reaction.
[/Quote]

Um, what? Neutrons expelled from U-236 nuclei during fission generate the chain reaction phenomenon, but as the linked pdf states–

[QUOTE=Page 2-18]
Because all neutrons that are produced by the fission process do not end up causing subsequent fissions, enough
neutrons must be produced to overcome the losses and to maintain the “critical” balance needed for a constant
power level. The neutrons that are lost to the fission process either “leak out” of the fuel area (escape) or are
absorbed by materials that do not fission. The materials that absorbed neutrons and do not fission are called
“neutron poisons.”
[/QUOTE]

Fission reactions decay over time–even the biggest and most uncontrolled fission reactions (like, say, a fission bomb) end when there is no more fissile material. The reaction is initiated by incident neutrons, which then generate other neutrons from multiple fissions. Why does another force have to be in play here? The reaction accelerates in a simple fashion until fuel is consumed.

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
OOOh, U-235 has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron if the neutron is moving slowly. Hmmm, sounds like something trying to soak up an object of a different charge.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, it also sounds like what happens when you drive past some pretty girls, and you slow down to look, and then you have a higher probability of rear-ending a semi. Maybe fission–no, the entire universe–is controlled by errant lascivious gazes!

I don’t care what it sounds like to you, because this is what experiments say it is. Also, neutrons have no charge, so I’m not sure what your point is with respect charge attraction/repulsion here. Are you saying neutrons have charge?

[Quote=TheFonz]
Oh well, sorry if you don’t understand… they don’t just make energy themselves. In breaking apart they draw in the ether, the dark energy, from their surroundings.
[/QUOTE]

That’s just insulting. I never said any of the particles in a fission reaction “make energy themselves.” I’m familiar with the laws of thermodynamics, thanks.

[Mangetout]

When I get a moment, I’m going to run this guy through the Crackpot Index. I’m expecting a high score.

[TheFonz]

That’s just insulting. I never said any of the particles in a fission reaction “make energy themselves.” I’m familiar with the laws of thermodynamics, thanks.

So either the energy in a nuclear bomb is stored inside the atom, or it pulls it from its surroundings. If there were no energy in there to be released then splitting an atom would be something we’d observe under a microscope.

Also, neutrons have no charge, so I’m not sure what your point is with respect charge attraction/repulsion here. Are you saying neutrons have charge?

Nope, remember I said that the nucleus of an atom is like the vacuum, and the electrons like the tube? That splitting an atom is like the explosion of a submarine collapsing, or a thick-walled lightbulb breaking. What do you think about the electromagnetic pulse that causes all electrical equipment in the area to fail? What do you even think about the electromagnetic pulse?
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/unaguave/Test20Nuclear.jpg
Anyways, you’ll see the universe is electrified soon enough, perhaps. Here’s an ancient artist’s representation of the top of the Tower of Babel.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/unaguave/nimrod-tower.jpg

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top *may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

He imagined he would fire an arrow at God, a nuke. The ultimate slap in the face. For this evil, they were scattered.

[Ale]

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
What do you even think about the electromagnetic pulse?
[/QUOTE]

That it can be explained by physics theories and models?

A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.

The gamma radiation from the atomic blast knocks electrons from the surrounding atmosphere, thus producing an electric pulse.

What do you think about it now?

[Bryan_Ekers]

We had a universal language and nothing we could imagine was restrained from us, and God fucked that up?
What a prick.

[TheFonz]

The gamma radiation from the atomic blast knocks electrons from the surrounding atmosphere, thus producing an electric pulse.

What do you think about it now?

OoOOoh NoOOOO! I think I’m going to pretend like I didn’t hear that because it completely smashes my beliefs. Completely! I mean, there couldn’t possibly be an electromagnetic cause for the electromagnetic pulse, which is what I’m arguing because I’m in favor of the Electric Universe Theory of All Things.