Electric Sun

Great Debates
381

Wow.

Not to be overly snide or anything, but after finally making my way through this entire thread I just have to say that the really scary part about all of this is that TheFonz actually seems to understand everything that he writes. I wouldn’t expect that to be the case if her were simply parroting stuff he read elsewhere. I find this both amazing and deeply disturbing. Heck, I consider myself to be reasonably well educated and intelligent, and I can’t even understand most of his cites let alone fit them together.

I have to give credit where credit is due. It takes a good deal of intellect to string together so much gibberish and to keep adding to it in response to other posters. He has obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this, and there doesn’t seem to be any aspect of modern science, religon, and conspiracy theories that he is unable to explain and/or integrate according to his rather unique world view. In fact, if it weren’t for the fact that he appears to be completely serious, I’d applaud him for his masterful parody of all things scientific and religious.

He reminds me of the Time Cube guy, except that he’s actually responding in more or less real time as opposed to just posting a website after who knows how many months of working things out.

Sure, he’s a crackpot, but he’s not your garden-variety crackpot, and I don’t think enough people give him the respect such high-level crackpottery deserves.

382

[QUOTE=TheFonz]

and a picture of modern day sorcery, just like our ancient ancestors knew all about:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/unaguave/pdfig4-2.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Much as I love Nikola Tesla (the man made AC power possible), it was my understanding that that picture was a fake made by Telsa to impress people. I have a biography with that image on the cover and Tesla is semitransparent.

Godzillatemple You’re not the only one who feels that way. Agree with it or not, TheFonz’s grand theory is clearly the work of a very inteligent mind.

383

All things aside, if you want to see some neat movies of sunpot filaments you can check them out here:
http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/x-job/ghanjah/
They’re as highly-detailed as they can be. You can see twisting vortices that looks so much like tornadoes in many of them. In others, you see the hot, glowing gas moving towards and away from the sunspots. Interesting stuff.

And thanks for at least acknowledging my efforts. To be promoted from crackpottery to high-end crackpottery, by TWO Dopers is… is… beyond words. I want to thank my momma, Jesus and all the children of the world. :cool:

Perhaps some day this will be promoted one step further to “maaaybe, but we’re still skeptical.” Perhaps if I can get enough coincidences in one post, with a variety of coincidences. If it was good enough for Hans to write several papers on, it’s good enough for me.

Alfvén, Hannes, On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona (1963)
Alfvén, Hannes, Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and a Theory of Solar Flares (1967)
Alfvén, Hannes, On the Importance of Electric Fields in the Magnetosphere and Interplanetary Space (1967)

384

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
I heard whatsisface Gigo give me a link saying that that one picture I posted is actually a volcano, when there’s no cauldera. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.
[/QUOTE]
So, it is your contention that Mt. Ranier is not a volcano because there is no visible caldera and Mt. Lassen is not a volcano since there is no visible caldera?

I am afraid that your attempt to distract us from the poverty of your “theories” is harmed when you deny things that are pretty clear to any objective observer. (And, yes, I would consider most of us to be more objective than someone who is simply a Ture Believer in discarded pseudoscience.)

385

I wonder what paradigm-shattering conclusions we might be able to draw if we could compare a photo of theFonz’s brain to this.
Or this.

Context? You don’t get no stinking context.

386

You know Tom, that Mt. Ranier picture sure as hell looks a lot like this picture of this cool feature on Venus with surrounding Lichtenberg figures. Yes they are volcanoes, but the Tyrrhena region on Mars wasn’t sufficiently zapped to get down into the core. Or maybe it would have been a hole, oozing lava if Venus hadn’t sucked all the life out of the planet.

Perhaps there is a connection between this electrical catastrophism that occured on our planet and the way our volcanoes formed? Maybe Ascreus Mons would have visible lava deposits all over it, instead of just pits and gouges where they say there was lava millions of years ago but we see none.

387

And speaking of this picture by the way, let me just try and figure out what the massive lightning arc creating it was doing. I would think that the massive arc was in the dead center, creating the main circle. Then the arc jumped to the high point which was the outer edges. It was really attracted to the center of the volcanoe, but since it was still too low the path of least resitance was the crater rim. After those would become too low, it began jumping its way back towards the center, creating the even lower, smaller deeper crater rim in the center.

388

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
And speaking of this picture by the way, let me just try and figure out what the massive lightning arc creating it was doing. I would think that the massive arc was in the dead center, creating the main circle. Then the arc jumped to the high point which was the outer edges. It was really attracted to the center of the volcanoe, but since it was still too low the path of least resitance was the crater rim. After those would become too low, it began jumping its way back towards the center, creating the even lower, smaller deeper crater rim in the center.
[/QUOTE]

Are you seriously saying that all volcanoes everywhere were created by lightning?

389

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
You know Tom, that Mt. Ranier picture sure as hell looks a lot like this picture of this cool feature on Venus with surrounding Lichtenberg figures. Yes they are volcanoes, but the Tyrrhena region on Mars wasn’t sufficiently zapped to get down into the core. Or maybe it would have been a hole, oozing lava if Venus hadn’t sucked all the life out of the planet.
[/QUOTE]
You are making it up as you go along. You claim that the Tyrrhena Patera cannot be a volcano because you don’t happen to choose to see a caldera. Then when I show you two mountains that are clearly volcanoes (Mt. Lassen has even erupted recently) that also do not have calderas, you try to change the subject with handwaving about Venus. Your claim that Tyrrhena Patera cannot be a volcano is not substantiated. Every geologist who has studied Mars recognizes Tyrrhena Patera to be a volcano. Your inability to see a caldera (when erosion has clearly worn away most of the surface features of the original eruptions) does not make a valid argument against it being a volcano. In addition, your decision to ignore the differences of scale between a small piece of clay and several thousand hectares of martian landscape does not speak well for your analysis. When a small bit of clay is heated and bubbles, the actual clay expands as part of it is rendered into gas and is trapped in the bubble. The size of the Tyrrhena Patera indicates that if it had been created by some sort of electric arc, it would have collapsed back into its original location. It simply would not have had sufficient structural strength to remain projecting several kilometres above the surrounding plain–particularly since it has obviously been hit by meteor strikes in the ensuing millennia.

This would be an example of dishonest argumentation and the sort of dodging and weaving that make most of us think that you are more committed to belief than to science.

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
Are you seriously saying that all volcanoes everywhere were created by lightning?
[/QUOTE]
Of course. That is why Parícutin, Mexico was first noticed during a dry spell with no clouds in the sky and continued to grow for eight years: invisible lightning kept feeding it. The invisible, undetectable lightning also explains why when Eldfell, Iceland was born in 1972, there was no big lightning storm and why when Reykjaneshryggur, Iceland began blowing up around 1970, all the photos taken by Naval patrol bombers showed blue skies and calm seas.

390

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

Of course. That is why Parícutin, Mexico was first noticed during a dry spell with no clouds in the sky and continued to grow for eight years: invisible lightning kept feeding it. The invisible, undetectable lightning also explains why when Eldfell, Iceland was born in 1972, there was no big lightning storm and why when Reykjaneshryggur, Iceland began blowing up around 1970, all the photos taken by Naval patrol bombers showed blue skies and calm seas.
[/QUOTE]

That’s unfair! I wanted him to dig a bigger hole first! Afterwards I was going to talk about Paricutín… (not the others, though) :mad:

391

Not all, I know some volcanoes have formed without lightning in recent times. Some of them ARE because of lightning.

392

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
Not all, I know some volcanoes have formed without lightning in recent times. Some of them ARE because of lightning.
[/QUOTE]

Now we’re getting somewhere.

How do you distinguish between an “electric”-volcano and a “non-electric”-volcano?
How is a “non-electric”-volcano born?

393

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]

How do you distinguish between an “electric”-volcano and a “non-electric”-volcano?

[/QUOTE]

Electric volcanoes have a switch down at the base labelled “Erupting” and “Dormant”. DO NOT FLIP THE SWITCH!!!

394

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You are making it up as you go along. You claim that the Tyrrhena Patera cannot be a volcano because you don’t happen to choose to see a caldera. Then when I show you two mountains that are clearly volcanoes (Mt. Lassen has even erupted recently) that also do not have calderas, you try to change the subject with handwaving about Venus. Your claim that Tyrrhena Patera cannot be a volcano is not substantiated. Every geologist who has studied Mars recognizes Tyrrhena Patera to be a volcano. Your inability to see a caldera (when erosion has clearly worn away most of the surface features of the original eruptions) does not make a valid argument against it being a volcano. In addition, your decision to ignore the differences of scale between a small piece of clay and several thousand hectares of martian landscape does not speak well for your analysis. When a small bit of clay is heated and bubbles, the actual clay expands as part of it is rendered into gas and is trapped in the bubble. The size of the Tyrrhena Patera indicates that if it had been created by some sort of electric arc, it would have collapsed back into its original location. It simply would not have had sufficient structural strength to remain projecting several kilometres above the surrounding plain–particularly since it has obviously been hit by meteor strikes in the ensuing millennia.

This would be an example of dishonest argumentation and the sort of dodging and weaving that make most of us think that you are more committed to belief than to science.
[/quote]

Beautifully said tomndebb! Logic indeed is showing that what we have here is the destruction of a “beautiful” theory because of an “ugly” fact.

It is amazing that he deemed crappy a cite from the Geological Society of America, he does not recognize a scientific paper even when it bites him.

He says now that he hates me in less than a couple of pages of dealing him; sad, See-thru-art began to complain after going on for ten pages, now that was crack pottery to admire! Even more sad when in reality I don’t hate **TheFonz ** in turn, that is reserved to the pseudo-scientists that are propping up this colossal waste of time on many.

I also have to add it is noticeable he is falling apart when I have only spent a tenth of the time and effort than I did with the last pretty picture pusher, as John Paul Jones said (Or Bugs Bunny for the cartoon villains) “I have not yet begun to fight!”

Just a cursory search shows a great debunking of a math nature in the Bad Astronomy board:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=748778&postcount=5

When I have more time, I will get the armada of math geeks on the SDMB to confirm results, it really does not look well for even the sun part of the theory, the rest of the solar system clearly shows nothing of giant electrical streams creating the features on Mars or the Moon as well as Quakes being the cause of electrical activity and not the other way around, that part of the Electrical Sun theory is indeed lost in the sands of time…

[QUOTE=Smeghead]
Electric volcanoes have a switch down at the base labelled “Erupting” and “Dormant”. DO NOT FLIP THE SWITCH!!!
[/QUOTE]

Dr Evil: Is it a hollowed out volcano like I asked for?

395

No fair, GIGObuster! You used that math stuff. Everyone knows that that math stuff is just a smokescreen by those science people to hide the Real Truth.

396

Not really. It was the “Researchers like the QuakeSat people are doing work already based on real research, Other theories are not so useful…” comment that really made you sound… uninformed to put it nicely.

Let me give it my cursory glance. Hmmmm, just as I suspected. Looks like a bunch of crap to me, here’s one of the first sentences:

“From the general mainstream model…” is the kicker. The general mainstream model also declares the solar “wind” (you know the thing that is accelerated off the surface by some unknown mechanism, and therefor we cannot factor that energy into the equation) to be electrically neutral. Why then does it accelerate, and at such a rate that convection alone cannot account for? The solar wind is very big, has a enough energy to create glowing rings on our magnetic poles, and therefor makes those equations (and their silly assumptions that light energy is all the energy being put out) to shame.

Everyone knows that when you start a series of mathematical equations and you get the very first line wrong, well all the rest of it is going to be wrong, too.

Now is there any other silly argument you feel like throwing at me? Please make the BS a lot harder to find next time. Please! :mad:

Apparently it is. YOU fell for it, and you’re the moderator of the Straight Dope.

397

What is this phenomena? For the answer. we will travel all the way to the Sun! Remember my pictures of the sunspots? How there are currents traveling to them? Well I’m going to try to explain this as simply as possible, and not bungle it all up with that rigid math stuff that nobody can understand because where the HELL is that guy getting his supposed facts from anyways?

Anyways, remember this picture of a sunspot?

Well you can clearly see that something is moving towards the sunspot, and there are magnetic fields all around the sunspot so we KNOW there are some charged particles moving around in there. What are they doing though?

Well it’s that etheral energy coming out of the core, heat energy, trying to pushes its way to the surface of the Sun. The particles in the surrounding surface move in to “collect” the energy coming out of the sunspot and distribute it to all the others particles of the surface. When they collect a sufficient charge at the sunspot area, they begin heading back towards the surrounding surface to distribute their load. You can sort of see this phenomena here:
http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/x-job/ghanjah/feb17_5.mpg
Notice how some of it appears to be flowing away from the sunspots, but some seems to be flowing in? It’s not a camera trick.

A powerful source of etheral energy can keep the currents in a straight line, a line of workers marching in to pick up a load and a line of workers marching back out to give it to the others that don’t have any. When the source weakens however, the very thing that was keeping their “eye on the goal” allows the “empties” and the “fulls” to be more attracted to each other than their destination. As a result, somewhere in the middle the move in towards each other, the connection is made and the empty particles that were next to the full ones begin absorbing.

Yep, mystery solved.

398

Still fighting the good fight. :cool:

399

[QUOTE=TheFonz]
“From the general mainstream model…” is the kicker. The general mainstream model also declares the solar “wind” (you know the thing that is accelerated off the surface by some unknown mechanism, and therefor we cannot factor that energy into the equation) to be electrically neutral. Why then does it accelerate, and at such a rate that convection alone cannot account for? The solar wind is very big, has a enough energy to create glowing rings on our magnetic poles, and therefor makes those equations (and their silly assumptions that light energy is all the energy being put out) to shame.

Everyone knows that when you start a series of mathematical equations and you get the very first line wrong, well all the rest of it is going to be wrong, too.
[/QUOTE]
You’re making stuff up, again. Where has any real scientist declared that the solar wind is electrically neutral? Are you (deliberately?) misreading the demonstrated fact that inflowing and outflowing currents at the equator and poles exist to arbitrarily declare that the “wind” is neutral? That is clearly not what has been identified by Alfven.

You are also ignoring the fact that Juergens’s calculations plot an energy dispersion far greater than anything that we have objectively measured (and you falsely claim that scientists only recognize/admit light as the only energy being dispersed–a claim the comes pretty close to an outright lie).

Your arguments tend to follow those of the adherents to Intelligent Design: first find a place where real scientists have not yet discovered the answer, then claim that your mystical theories (that have neither experimental nor theoretical support) “solve” those gaps in knowledge. However, just as Behe’s God of the Gaps keeps shrinking in biology (where structures that he claimed in 1996 could never be found had already been discovered before 1999), your claims are based on a belief that your “science” (lacking both mathematical theory and experimental data) will never be silenced by the actual work of real physicists, astronomers, geologists, and mathematicians.

400

Phil Plait says it all the time, since there are both protons and electrons in the solar wind. And are you ignoring the fact that we don’t understand the mechanism by which the solar wind accelerates, so that energy had not been added into that crappy equation that is “proof” that the Sun cannot be electrically energized?