If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 06/03/2017 7:35:29 AM PDT by seastay
It’s obvious that the Sun is the major influence on the Earth’s temperature, weather, and climate. Humans have a small effect on all that. No reason to pollute, but I doubt that we can change the climate.
Russia is not a participant in the Paris Climate Accord. Russian scientists recognize it as a hoax.
Here in the Miami Valley the joke goes, if you don't like the weather, wait five minutes.
If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
Actually, it's not. The thrust of this article and of those who theorize the Electric Universe, as do I, hold that stars, including our own Sun, are electrical anodes on great circuits of electricity flowing throughout the Universe. Electromagnetism is a force that, like gravity, is infinite in range, but is thirty-nine orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, which is the weakest of all the forces. Yet orthodox cosmologists have fixated on this weak force of gravity to claim it runs the Universe despite all evidence of wide-ranging electromagnetic forces throughout the Universe doing things that gravity cannot explain, and having a experimental and demonstrable and scalable ability to reconstruct in the laboratory what we see in our telescopes.
The Electric Universe cosmology regularly makes predictions in advance of discoveries which, when found, surprise and baffle orthodox gravity theory cosmologists. However, the orthodox cosmologists will ignore those correct predictions and sneer at the Electric Universe Cosmologist — despite there being two Nobel laureates associated with the theory— and go back to invoking magical creations such as dark matter and dark energy as fudge factors to even get their math to come out right! On the other hand, the Electric Universe people keep making accurate predictions and accurately explaining the new surprises (surprising to the orthodoxy) which most often they expect to find, having predicted the behavior, or seen it in the microcosm in the lab.
Specifically, the notion that stars are nuclear fusion furnaces seems pretty straightforward to me.
Does the "Electric Universe" crowd reject the idea that stars are giant fusion reactors? If so, then I'd posit that there is a reason that the "orthodox cosmologists" have issues with Electric Universe adherents.
Furthermore, isn't it possible that there could be some kind of hybrid model which helps explain the universe using the best ideas of both theories?
It seems pretty non-controversial that nuclear fusion is the primary reaction occurring in stars...
HOW THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE BEGAN
The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.
http://710wor.iheart.com/onair/mark-simone-52176/watch-how-the-global-warming-scare-15883123/
But does our closest electrical anode control our climate? Yes or no?
The is a difference between pollution and CO2. And when it comes to reducing pollution, especially particulates, the US by far is the leader.
Countries that create a lot of CO2 are countries that are productive, and the rest of the world (and most democrats) are trying to hamstring the US.
It's not straightforward at all. . . unless you can explain how convection can transfer heat from the solar chromosphere with a temperature of approximately 5800 Kelvin to the upper atmosphere of the sun and somehow make it 1.5 million to 2 million Kelvin. Add to that the fact when we look at the areas BELOW that "solar surface" chromosphere with its temperature of 5800 Kelvin by peering through sunspots, the temperatures we see on the sub-surfaces is only 4000-5000 Kelvin?
The Thermonuclear star theory requires all the heat from the perpetually exploding core to be transmitted purely by convection to higher and higher layers. . . but at consecutively lower temperatures as the areas and volumes increase that are being heated by that convection upwards. But, Sargon, that is NOT what observation is showing us. Instead we are seeing COOLER areas below HOTTER areas. That does NOT comport with what the theory says we should find. We really do not know what is going on below the chromosphere and what we can see through the sunspots.
Similarly, there have never been enough Neutrinos measured flowing from the sun if the thermonuclear theory were correct. This problem has been "solved" by the orthodox cosmologists by the simple means of declaring that two-thirds of those neutrinos have been converted into something else (they don't say what) and go spinning off elsewhere before they get to the Earth where we can measure them. More magic? What ever they turn into its another fudge factor to make their theory work that is unmeasurable.
Does the "Electric Universe" crowd reject the idea that stars are giant fusion reactors? If so, then I'd posit that there is a reason that the "orthodox cosmologists" have issues with Electric Universe adherents.
Frankly, Sargon, we are completely ignorant of how the sun or any star really works. The high-priests of science, after examining their belly button lint, and throwing some broken pieces of old slide rules on the ground, have pronounced that it works this way and everyone fell in line and believe them without demanding ANY ABSOLUTE EMPIRICAL PROOF! There is none.
Absolutely. It is inherent in the Electric Universe cosmology. Stars are anodes on vast filaments of electromagnetic energy flowing throughout galaxies and the Universe. We can see them flowing through space and astronomers are mapping those filaments even now. Stars and galaxies exist along them. Electromagnatism is 39 orders stronger than gravity and is just as infinite in reach. That's:
Thats one duodecillion times stronger than gravity. (yep, I looked it up.)
Yet orthodox astronomers and cosmologists essentially IGNORE electromagnetism in favor of a force that much weaker as controlling the movement of everything in the Universe. . . and powering the stars. To even GET their math to work, they have to CREATE unseen mass called dark matter which they have been looking for and NOT FINDING for over seventy years! Now, because of something the Electric Universe cosmologists PREDICTED, they are looking for a force that is causing the long voyaging space craft to vary from the gravity predicted orbits which they are terming "Dark Energy!" However, if they were just to apply the long understood laws of Electromagnetism to the orbitary physics, they'd FIND their so-called "Dark Energy" isn't so dark after all, but has been right in front of them all along!
Furthermore, isn't it possible that there could be some kind of hybrid model which helps explain the universe using the best ideas of both theories?
Why build a "hybrid model" when the math from the Electric Universe Model already explains things observed and fits into LABORATORY recreations in plasma experimentation?
Why is it necessary to squeeze to fit a perfectly good theory trying fit completely UN-OBSERVED phenomena into a theory when Electric Universe theory currently fits ALL of the OBSERVED phenomena perfectly well and one can make perfectly good predictions for future findings that turn out to be factual when you go and look to confirm those predictions? On the other hand the predictions of the Thermonuclear theorists are failing left and right and the expected findings are NOT being observed? In addition, those theorists are being forced to prop up their theory by creating unseen conversion to theoretical mystery particles to explain a LACK of predicted particles that they SHOULD be seeing (Neutrinos). When one hypothesis is not meeting one's expectations, it's time to scrap the failing hypothesis and go on to a hypothesis that is meeting expectations.
It seems pretty non-controversial that nuclear fusion is the primary reaction occurring in stars...
Why? It actually is a matter of belief but not fact. We have not ever observed the thermonuclear process. It is a construct that a consensus (there's that word, anathema to real scientists, again) of astronomers and cosmologists were TAUGHT was a fact but has never been proven. A couple of Nobel Prize winning physicists happened to have disagreed with that conclusion. . . for very good reasons. Now more and more scientists are coming to the same disagreement.
Cosmologists and Astronomers were also taught that "there were no charges in space." But everywhere we look in space, now that we are looking with X-ray and Radiotelescopes, we are finding high-charge and high voltage charges flying through space. What was once described as "hot gases" are now understood to be highly charged plasma, the most ubiquitous form of matter, where electrons are no longer bound to any one nuclei. Where Electrons flow, Magnetism is created. Ergo, Electromagnetism.
I suggest you look up the hundreds of Herbig-Haro objects we have found in the Universe and ask yourself how could anything in space retain a spiral structure across dozens of lightyears of distance over millions of years if gravity and its spherical field of force were the only thing acting on that gas. Orthodox cosmologists blither about whirligig sources similar to lawn sprinklers squirting out the original gas causing the shape, but that doesn't explain why they hold their shape across trillions of miles and millions of years. The Electric Universe cosmologists can and do explain it and it has NOTHING to do with gravity.
Or, perhaps you can try to explain how gravity and thermonuclear physics can create something like the Butterfly Nebula (M2-9) in the Constellation Ophiuchus,seen here in X-Ray image with false colors representing energy levels?
Such ELECTRICAL PLASMA phenomena have been duplicated in the microcosm in the laboratory of plasma physicists as what we see here in the Macrocosm. That is a STAR being formed in the middle... and it is what is called an electricalmagnetic bottle pinch.
Can't the gravitational model physicists—who clearly hold the dominant paradigm—point to similar weaknesses in the electromagnetic model which don't match the observed data with respect to stars?
Are you familiar with MOND—an alternative to dark matter theory for explaining the motion of stars and galaxies—and is MOND "compatible" with the electromagnetic universe model?
"Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s."Are you claiming that the assertion—"[plasma cosmology] does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory"—is simply false?
Let's paraphrase this and you'll see what's been going on:
"Climetologists and meteorologists who have evaluated those who disagree with human caused Climate change have rejected them because their work does not match the observations of global warming and climate change phenomena as well as current climatological theory. Very few papers opposing Climate change/global warming have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s."
Do you see what a circular argument Wikipedia's editor posted? There ARE no peer-reviewed articles on plasma/Electric Universe challenges to the orthodox theory because the orthodoxy will not allow "such twaddle" in their view to see the light of day that might upset their gravy train. Do you know how many billions of dollars are being spent on fusion research based on the assurances that the sun is a "stable fusion reactor?"
I.E. you cannot get published unless you toe the orthodox theory line. Nor, Sargon can you get observatory time (preciously expensive), grant money, or tenure if you challenge orthodoxy, even if you are making accurate predictions on what will be observed and found. Iconoclasts in any orthodox structure are ousted because they make waves and say that the hoary honored names GOT IT WRONG and that everything you thought you knew was wrong!
If what that Wikipedia citation states were true, why is it that with every single new discovery in space, an article describing it begins "cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists were (surprised, shocked, thunderstruck, etc., insert your choice here) at the findings of the (blank) when . . . " while the Electric Universe cosmologist and astrophysicists, who are ALSO scientists, had often specifically predicted what so ( surprised, shocked, thunderstruck, etc.,) the orthodox scientist who were not at all expecting such a thing. I can cite you dozens of such things.
You did not address even a single one of the challenges I put to you. Instead you appealed to authority with Wikipedia which trots out ancient history from before the X-ray telescope.
Try applying YOUR brain. Please use some critical thinking and see if YOU can conceive of any way mono-polar gravity can construct that Butterfly Nebula with such exact symmetry. Keep in mind it HAS been duplicated in a plasma laboratory in the microcosm. . . and that these effects are linearly scalable by the simple means of just adding more power. Ramp up the power and they get far bigger! One of the tests of a theory is duplicateability. Plasma/electric Universe passed that test. Gravity Universe cannot. It cannot even pass the explicable math test.
Great elucidatory post.
The evidence of massive electrical discharges which scar planets is so very apparent.I would imagine that plasma and electromagnetic energy would be both associated with the phenomenon.
Perhaps the odd interstellar energy tendril occasionally intersects with a planetary orbit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV1e5_tB6Y&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UfvhvcT1lZA6KbSdh0K2EpH&index=4
Yoda said that not Vader.
I stand corrected. It "has" been a while since I've seen the flicks.
I agree that cooling is more of a danger than warming. It's also something we have a harder time dealing with. If we were to see something like another ice age push, it would be catastrophic. You can't farm under a mile of ice.
That's one of the things that has made me laugh at folks who think the standard models accurately describe the way the universe really works. Every single planet in the solar system is deeply different in fundamental ways from each other. Astronomers sometimes seem like me to be like sheep who are surprised at the sun rising each morning. Every time I read the phrase "dark matter" or "dark energy" I chuckle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.