Electric Sun

Great Debates
21

The fact that we do not understand everything about everything does not mean that any hypothesis is as good as any other. But, hey, I’ll take the bait here: If thunderstorms don’t generate the charge separation, how does it occur…and does your hypothesis explain [http://newsletter.dri.edu/1999/spring/Lightning.html?](]the relative lack of lightning in hurricanes[/url)

Also, can you direct me to some hard calculations that have been done to support the electric sun hypothesis? As you are no doubt aware, the sort of nice prose that we read regarding various theories and hypotheses is in fact backed up by formal mathematical calculations, even if often on models with various simplifications. It is not enough to just wax poetic about atoms giving up their electrons and electric currents and so forth. One actually has to do some rigorous electrodynamics calculations to back it up and produce testable hypotheses that can be compared to real physical data.

Just out of curiosity and to get a gauge of how much of contemporary science you challenge, which of the following do you believe?

(1) The theory of evolution to explain the origin of species.

(2) That the earth is ~4.5 billion years old and the general geological explanations of continental drift, earthquakes, volcanism, etc.

(3) Big Bang cosmology.

(4) Anthropogenic global warming.

22

Wait a minute.

I can buy a galactic electric current. I can even buy the sun as an “excited filament”…maybe.

But you go completely beyond the realm of scientific experience when you suggest that scientists have detected something that could lead to grant money but refused to disclose it!

You think I’m kidding, but I’m not. The folks who do this kind of science just live for the chance to tell everyone about some neat new thing they’ve found – and to be the first to do so – I can’t believe they’d have the self control to keep something like this under wraps.

Sailboat

23

…and does your hypothesis explain the relative lack of lightning in hurricanes?

24

Are you essentially saying that the sun actually gets its energy from an invisible medium which cannot be directly observed or measured? Is the electric sun model dependent on the existence of Ether?

25

If only the Bad Atromomer still posted here, he would link to his own opinions of the Electric Sun Silliness.

26

You can try to diss it all you like, but mainstream astronomy relies on TWO silly ideas: dark matter and dark energy. Whereas this idea at least relies solely on some form of dark energy. Do you even think things through?

Yeah, all the energy is flowing through the eye of a hurricane. Any child can see that the energy in an F5 tornado is more than what’s available in the surrounding air. This is why some people who have had the eye of a hurricane pass over them have seen red glowing lights, which can only be a discharge to the ionosphere. Katrina, Rita, Wilma and all those hurricanes of last year had lots of lightning in the eyewall, and they all blew up to cat. 5 status in a matter of hours. More energy = faster development = greater chance of lightning.

What? Did you think vertical winds made all the difference?

27

What makes you think I’m dissing it?

I never called the Ether silly. I’m rather fond of the Ether.

Last time I checked, we had plenty of indirect evidence for dark matter. You haven’t shown me any evidence for the existence of a flow of dark energy to the sun. Nor have you proven that such a flow is the source of the sun’s energy.

Indeed I do. I find the many models emerging in physics (standard, quantum mechanics, and astro) and cosmology which are strongly reminiscent of Luminiferous Ether to be rather heartwarming. Some of these ideas (the existence of dark matter) even have sound evidence backing them up.

You, however, have failed to prove the existence of

If they are facts, provide reliable cites. Then prove that they contradict the fusion model. Saying they are unexplained is not good enough.

Your photos do not prove a thing, or show anything contradicting the fusion model.

28

Well, if “any child can see that…”, I assume you could provide us with a simple calculation that demonstrates this.

So, I guess all the current atmospheric modeling that is used to predict the weather, including the evolution of hurricanes and so forth is wrong because it doesn’t include these extra terms from the electric universe or whatever?

I assume you (or the others who have proposed this) have read the major literature in the field first so that you understand the theories in their full mathematical representations and that you can present the mathematical calculations to explain your words here? Otherwise, you are just whistling into the wind.

29

Mmm.
Oh, man, this is gonna be great.

30

There is a fundamental difference, however. These ideas in astronomy operate on scales that we know much less about than the scales of the sun or of thunderstorms, and seem to imply a fundamental restructuring of knowledge on these scales. This is very problematic.

Take the theory of relativity as an example. People will claim that this overturned Newton’s laws of motion. However, in fact, relativity shows that Newton’s Laws are followed to exquisite precision at the sort of velocities that we experience in everyday life. Thus, while relativity was a revolution, it did not require the overturning of the substantial body of scientific knowledge that had occurred around the mechanics of motion of objects moving at much less than the speed of light.

So, what you are calling for with the “electric universe” hypothesis is a scientific revolution much more profound and far-reaching than that for relativity…with a vast overturning of knowledge in fields ranging from hydrodynamics, to thermodynamics, to statistical mechanics. And, on the basis of what, exactly?

31

I think I skipped a thought in here. It ought to read something like: “These ideas in astronomy operate on scales that we know much less about than the scales of the sun or of thunderstorms, whereas the “electric sun” and “electric universe” hypotheses seem to imply a fundamental restructuring of knowledge on these better-studied scales.”

32

Indeed, it sure is going to be great. I love a good debate just as much as the next guy. Let me start off with a few basics though:

Lightning is NOT caused by the clouds, or by some “rubbing your feet across the carpet” mechanism. Just because that generates static electricity does not mean the clouds can. Sprites and Elves show us that this energy comes from space. Here is a picture showing the electric phenomena we know of, and the altitudes they occur at:

Can you see? At very high altitudes, there is very little atmosphere which means there is very little electric resitivity. This is why vacuum tubes work so well; there is very little air.

When the solar “wind” comes flowing in, we get auroras on our MAGNETIC poles:

That is how it works. We don’t get auroras because the solar current is electrically neutral, we get auroras because there is a great amount of energy being exchanged.

All of a sudden the “impossible” lightning storms our ancestors described make sense. Here are some of the effects larger discharge events can have on entire planets.

Lightning on a golf course:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/unaguave/060309lightning.jpg
Compared to features on Venus:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/unaguave/060309venus.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/unaguave/060309venus-2.jpg
and on the Moon:


Take a look at the crater known as Tycho. Just left of the arrow pointing at it there is a “ray” that points not towards the center of the crater but towards the crater rim. How can an impact have caused this? It didn’t, that is where the stream of electrons travelled across the face of the moon towards the point of discharge.

A lightning rille on Earth:

and on the moon (Schroter’s Valley):

Mars is a much more sad story. Long ago this planet had life, but one day a massive comet flew by it and zapped the hell out of it. The northern hemisphere of the planet was “lifted off,” while the southern hemisphere was crushed with lightning strikes. This is why the northern hemisphere sits 3000 feet below the average for the planet, while the southern hemisphere is 3000 feet above the average elevation.

One feature of a lightning crater is that it has a raised mound in the middle, and moisture trapped inside the soil and claw rises out of the ground and sweats away from the arc.

These results have been achieved in labs before, in experiments like this one:

These miniature electric craters have raised bumps in the middle.
And this one:

The feature you see on the left there is the Olympus Mons on Mars, supposedly the solar systems largest volcano. The “volcano” seems to have craters centered on other craters, and sports a surprisingly smooth cauldera.

The craters centered on other craters is caused by the arc jumping from the lowest elevation (the center of the crater) to the highest elevation (the crater rim). There it begins a new crater, centered on the previous one.

The massive object that caused this event would have been super charged with that ether (or dark energy). When this object passed by Mars the planet discharged its electrons through its North pole, as the direction a magnetic field spins is indicative of the movement of electrons:

The object discharged its ether into the south pole of Mars, crushing the southern hemisphere with lightning bolts, while the north pole was lifted off. Near the equator, a massive arc created the Valles Marineris and the 4 great “volcanoes” forming the triangle you can see on the topography map.

Oh you thought that was crazy, I’m just getting warmed up. Before this object passed by Mars, it also stopped by the planet that used to be the asteroid belt. I’ll call this planet Krypton, after Superman’s blown up homeworld. The object was much more charged at this time, and had a much greater charge difference. Rather than zapping the planet the object just blew it up, gaining the necessary electrons from it. After that it passed by Mars, but wasn’t nearly as powerful so it just zapped the hell out of the planet. After that, it passed by Earth and ended the Golden Age we once had here. It created two great hurricanes at our poles, sucking up the water and quickly freezing it, creating our ice caps.

Boy, that Krypton though… You know in many of the comics, such as Kingdom Come, the story of Superman is basically the story of Jesus Christ. If this story really did have some truth to it, the asteroid belt would be Jesus’ Krypton. :smiley:

All of a sudden, these old paintings from the past make so much more sense!
The crucifixion, painted in 1350:

What’s that, over Jesus’ shoulder?

Maybe he was just ripping off this guy, though?

Oh maaan, here he comes from Krypton!

Look ho! What sorcery is that?

and that!

Good ol’ Moses, recieving those stone tablets…

The Madonna with St. Giovanino

Another Crucifixion

Sputnik:




That’s how you tie in the Electric Sun theory to religion. Let’s see the Big Bang do that.

33

Prove it.

The air is evacuated to prevent the electrified components from oxidizing. This is also why incandescent lightbulbs are filled with argon.

As electricity travels along the path of least resistance, the risk of current leaping from a continuous circuit of wire and streaming through the air is quite low. Note that power lines are not insulated.

The Northern and Southern Lights are quite well explained by the fusion model.

What impossible lightning storms?

So of the whole moon, that’s the only mark left by this energy stream?

How very Velikovsky.

Holy Worlds In Collision! It is Velikovsky!

All those paintings are already explained by the fact that devotional art is odd and full of symbols and allusions. There is no need for them to be accurate representations of anything.

You’ve brought in Velikovsky, if you could cite Fort I’d really be happy. Better still, can the Cthulhu Mythos be used as proof of your claims?

34

I’ve only recently heard about Velikovsky. All the conclusion I came to were my own, AFTER reading up on the different subjects from several different authors. I’ve never had a chance to read anything else on Velikovsky than what’s posted on the official site http://www.varchive.com

I was impressed by what he had to say, and it encouraged me that he shared many of the same ideas. He lived in a much simpler time, before our satellites and other scientific equipment were developed enough to offer the additional data crucial to his electromagnetic nature-of-the-universe theory. So did Einstein and all the other fathers of our science. It is a simple FACT that there must be a relationship between gravity and the other 3 major forces we know of.

And who are you to say those paintings don’t represent anything specific? It sure as hell looks to me like they do. Maybe you need to drink a Red Bull.

35

Oh, and way to skim through everything. There’s another picture of Schroter’s Valley compared to a lightning rille here on Earth. You are teh smart!

36

Wow, the thing measured in feet looks like a feature measured in miles. There’s also a lunar formation that looks like Kermit The Frog, therefore Jim Henson is the one who initally charged the sun.

Oops, I missed this image. There are many rays. All of them look exactly like they were caused by impacts. The current model explains them.

Prove that Mars once supported life.

Von Daniken too! I tip my hat to you sir!

Re The Paintings

Who are you to say they DO represent an actual object? I can find images of St Christopher shown as a giant, and images of the Pentecost showing dog-headed men.

37

Another comparison between something measured in feet, and a feature that is miles long.

Hmm, dolphins look like fish. Therefore, they are fish.

Sputnik- Or God the Father and God The Son painting the newly created earth?

Various discs in the sky- Solar discs in devotional art, how shocking and unexpected. I mean, I’ve NEVER seen Jesus or Mary surrounded by a nimbus of devotional light.

Re Moses- Your linked image shows him with horns. This is due to a mistranslation of the Hebrew. The proper reading is that after seeing God, Moses’ face glowed. So, a mistranslation leads to an incorrect image.

I don’t need a Red Bull. I have Diet Dew!

38

Well, logically, if fusion can make H-Bombs, you gotta assume the even more impressive electrical whatchamajigger that powers the sun could make a kick-ass E-Bomb!
As a minor note, I was under the impression that the rotational energy of a hurricane was imparted by the rotation of the Earth itself. Y’know, the Coriolis Effect and all that.

39

A common misconception, Bryan, as mainstream science has polluted the airwaves with their THEORIES that have been told so many times that people have actually begun to believe that they are fact. What’s actually happening is the very low pressure in the eye of a storm is the medium where these electrons are allowed to easily escape. Tornadoes, hurricanes, dust devils are all the same sort of phenomena.

All these things create MASSIVE electric fields, and it is believed that they generate this charge separation by friction in the floating particles colliding with each other. The discovery of powerful electric fields above dust devils surprised everyone, however, because it was believed that they weren’t powerful enough to generate the friction necessary to generate the field! Whew…

From a USA Today article:

Emphasis added
A discharge from the top of the eye to the ionosphere. The ionosphere is exactly where elves occur, the glowing discharge rings that require much more energy than the air alone can supply.

The truth is that the energy that goes into creating these things is much more than the air can hold. Warm rising air doesn’t create F5 tornadoes. This is why when there are more sunspots and solar flares we get more extreme weather.

Like in this picture. Can you count the hurricanes?

Spaceweather.com shows us that on september 14th of 2004 there was an aurora watch. Coincidence? Yes, according to all the Dopers I’m sure. But we are real men of intelligence, right Bryan?
http://www.spaceweather.com/index.cgi

40

You seem not to understand the word theory as used in science.

Prove how much energy goes into creating a tornado. Prove how much energy the air can hold. Show me cited figures and equations.

I can count the spiral clouds. But, without measuring air pressure and wind speed I can’t say if they’re hurricanes, tropical storms, or tropical depressions.