our sun part of a binary system?

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">stars do not use fusion to create energy. </font><br /><br />So they generate energy via 'intelligent design'? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Oh, brother. And people wonder why I have effectively ceased to post in these science forums....the same, tired old, "no scientist throughout history has any clue what they were talking about. Only *I* - the GREAT SANTINI know the truth..."<br /><br />Mammy Jam. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

One might think that the same physics that guided the development of a working hydrogen bomb back in the 1950's that also describes in great detail how the sun works would be confirmation enough.<br /><br />Of course, we did have a poster on here once who denied the existence of electricity and the internet.......<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<br />silylene: "So they generate energy via 'intelligent design'?"<br /><br />LOL! i wasn't expecting that. i like your humor. <br /><br />stars more than likely use FISSION to shed charge that builds up within the star. gravitational force (acting "downward") of the star itself "contains" the star from exploding, as such pressure creates a separation of charge within the star. that separation of charge then creates counterpressure (outward). why? like poles repel like poles. in this case it is + to +. you can try it yourself with magnets. try holding the same poles of two magnets together. what happens? you get magnetic repulsion. this is the same thing that keeps a star spherical, as gravity acts upon it's outer surface to contain it. <br /><br />literally, the atoms within the star, under gravitational pressure, arrange themselves to create an electromagnetic dipole axis. this creates an electric field. and because a proton weighs close to 2000 times as much as an electron, this guarantees that charge separation will occur (in favor of the proton). <br /><br />therefore, free electrons will drift toward the surface and leave behind a positively charged core, ie, the "anode" (+). then the electrons (-) must be sacrificed, and they escape to space when the repulsion of the positive particles from each other, within the star, overwhelms the gravity acting down upon it's own surface. this is why we get solar flares. consider it like a pressure release valve. but it in this case, the pressure is electrical. <br /><br />sometimes the imbalance builds up to the point of the entire star exploding. and it undergoes a nova event. or it may meet "half way" and not explode, but fission into two stars, creating a binary pair. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[telfrow]

Well, we can guess what the next website posted will be... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Oh dear.<br /><br />Behold! The "Electric Universe" rears it's ugly visage once again.<br /><br />I guess some people took their physics training in a correspondance course offered by Montgomery Ward. And failed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yep. <br /><br />and it sheds light on every ridiculous black hole, neutron star, and big bang out there. at the very least it poses brutal challenges to the current medieval idea structure that is what cosmology is right now. <br /><br />your response is typical and expected.

 

[yevaud]

Of course it is. Because if you all you deal with is fantasy and fabrications, that's what your view of everything will always be.<br /><br />Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're fully stocked here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

here we go, baby! <br /><br />you are projecting! you are talking about singularities, event horizons, guranteed black holes of millions of solar masses at the centers of all galaxies, neutron stars, gravitational collapse, Newtonian-only movements of planets and stars, pulsars that rotate on their axes in less than a second, in milliseconds... and more. and you want to defend all of that! you should go hang out with Ptolemy! <br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Mind informing me of your academic accreditation in the subjects of Astronomy, Physics, and Space Sciences?<br /><br />Subscription to OMNI? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

The response should be predictable:<br /><br /><i>Degrees? We don't need no stinkin' degrees.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[jatslo]

There is nothing wrong with fission as opposed to fusion; plop, plop, fizz, fizz sounds better than plop, plop, fuse, fuse. So to all you people out there bashing bonzelite, chill out!!! You’re going to fizz out. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> What thread is this anyway?<br /><br />(S); (W), (EM) WTF? Where is (G)? Oh, forget that EM has a north and south?<br /><br />It is better to fizz out than fade away. I am beginning to like this bonzelite.

 

[yevaud]

Gee, and we had such hope for you.<br /><br />*sigh*<br /><br />Guess you'll have to repeat "Common sense and not having a schizoid break 101." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Why do you think that we can split an atom? Where is your evidence? They say they are using a fusion lithium reactor, fusion is possible, but why would the sun not be fission? What proof do you have to convince me?

 

[vogon13]

The same physics that guided the successful development of the hydrogen bomb in the 1950's describe in detail the reactions that power the sun. Additionally, spectral evidence, and direct measurement of the solar wind particles by spacecraft confirm the sun is made of the appropriate (low Z) materials for these reactions to occur at the appropriate rate.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Fission is insufficient to explain the dynamics of a star. It has been scrutinized before, you know.<br /><br />See, this is why people like me respond as I do. People frequently pop off, "well, I think It's *this*," without having a clue about the fine points of the physical process. It's very easy to do this, and people like me are very familiar with this: someone states something way the F' out there, either explains it poorly or not at all, and then says "prove your side."<br /><br />As if we have the time and patience to re-explain an entire body of science to someone who hasn't bothered to take the time to fully learn it themselves. What a cop-out we hear. E.g., "I don't have to really explain my non-scientific ideas, but you have to go through your understanding of things, step-by-step." How lame.<br /><br />Do you think a fission process is sufficient to sustain the outward thrust of a star's internal processes versus gravity pulling inwards? It's not, you know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Let's move to a fission/fusion thread, because I think we are off topic, I have some new ideas to run past you.

 

[bonzelite]

plasma dynamics and electricity are scientific ideas. and they are intentionally censored, kept out of anything relating to cosmology. that is simply true.<br /><br />they are kept out not because they fail to explain things, but because they politically threaten decades of study and institutionalization of theories that have become rigid "facts" never to be questioned. today, to be a scientist, you must understand that you must become somewhat a fascist idealogue.<br /><br />school curricula fail to implement these disciplines into astronomy in particular --everything must be mathematically abstract, unbelievable, and exclusive to theoretical elitists. <br /><br />you can have a degree in physics and it is all good. you can be an engineer and make a lot of money. maybe even have a few patents pending. and that is fine. you are applying real science. and it works. people drive cars, fly planes, build bridges, engineer medicine, etc. but why would they hire a mathematician, who cannot make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, to be the head chef at a prominent french restaurant, for example? i'm sure he's a real smart guy. but hardly qualified for such a job. <br /><br />you are remiss, arrogant, and myopic to assume that "this is it." so we can continue to fund space programs that serve to examine what drives the solar systems and galaxies, things that tax dollars and expectations are invested in --hugely, and just never approach the data, or instrument design, with any other view point. gravity wins; this is what you are defending. <br /><br />gravity and electricity work in concert. they are of the same universe. insofar as a force, gravity is far too weak to be responsible for the things that big bang apologists perpetuate the belief of. and this is anti-pioneering. the books are "cooked" if you will. and it is OBVIOUS. <br /><br />talking to such people is THE SAME as talking to fundamentalist christians who believe in creation. you cannot say anything to them and have it

 

[jatslo]

I see your logic; these guys and gals have been busting my chops since day one. Yevaud is cool, but he has trouble sorting facts from fiction. Gravity is electromagnetism, as in gravity is a fairy tale like unicorns, talking horses, and fire breathing dragons.

 

[bonzelite]

jat, it's ok. i can get along with pretty much anybody even when we're at loggerheads. i just want to have some fun and weigh ideas. it will only help me learn. and hopefully i can impart some things for others to ponder.<br /><br />the whole area of physics and cosmology, astronomy, is one of my favorite <br />areas to ponder and trip out on. i just love it. and i'm glad to have found this forum site. <br /><br />electromagnetism is gravity: LOL! <br /><br />cheers <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

We're always open to new ideas here. As long as they make some sense. This does not. You're stating things that cannot do what you claim they can do. EM forces or Fission processes cannot explain how a sun works.<br /><br />And it's as simple as that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

There is a problem with (G); (EM), (W), and (S): It don't like (G), so someone made an imaginary friend to make a link that will be forever philosophical (Super String). This means that (G) might not exist yevaud and stevehw33.

 

[colesakick]

People seem innately gifted with the predilection for forming a basis upon which to define the material world in some meaningful way. Once one's foundation is satisfactorily developed and securely believed as real and true it is almost impossible to shake it. Why should that be so? Why wouldn't we be innately gifted with the predilection to being open to whatever new thing the wind blows in? Perhaps because we NEED to have a foundation in order to move forward. Perhaps in saying "yes, I understand that, it makes sense, I believe it sound and correct," we provide ourselves some finished business that allows us to move on to other business. One thing is for certain, personal bias permeates scientific reasoning because we are human and cannot help it.<br /><br />Let"s consider Solar wind for a moment. Wind is a misnomer in a vacuum condition such as space, is it not? An electric current, however, is able to arc through space and needs no imaginary "wind" to ride its speeding electrons along.<br /><br />I understand the resistance to allowing one trained and persuaded of a certain meaningful model for star formation and energy output (a personal foundation and seemingly finished business for you) but I cannot be told that some other meaningful model could not be equally reasonable or better suited to the evidence under consideration. <br /><br />It is apparent that you (those opposing it in this thread) have not actually looked at the electric plasma model, its realized predictions nor evidence. Your position is that you have a solid foundation under yourself so why look? Those who have looked are finding it increasingly difficult to suffer the failures of the standard model silently. We used to think that the failures would clear themselves up given enough time to tweak the models. It now seems evident that time is not the problem, it is the model itself.<br /><br />The electric model is clean, concise an virtually complete (can't close the circuit yet, may need the aether mod <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

 

[jatslo]

colesakick said: <font color="yellow">People seem innately gifted with the predilection for forming a basis upon which to define the material world in some meaningful way. Once one's foundation is satisfactorily developed and securely believed as real and true it is almost impossible to shake it. Why should that be so? Why wouldn't we be innately gifted with the predilection to being open to whatever new thing the wind blows in? Perhaps because we NEED to have a foundation in order to move forward. Perhaps in saying "yes, I understand that, it makes sense, I believe it sound and correct," we provide ourselves some finished business that allows us to move on to other business. One thing is for certain, personal bias permeates scientific reasoning because we are human and cannot help it. </font><br /><br />Making sense, and providing evidence to support sensationalism is difficult when chaos is involved. We can have gravity without breaking the rules, so I tolerate it. I would like to see barometers strategically placed in space, because I think that gravity is an area of low pressure created by electromagnetism. Furthermore, I can finally prove my hypothesis in a lab. Do you know anyone with access that would be willing to give me a shot?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Let’s consider Solar wind for a moment. Wind is a misnomer in a vacuum condition such as space, is it not? An electric current, however, is able to arc through space and needs no imaginary "wind" to ride its speeding electrons along. </font><br /><br />I can do this without the aid of imaginary friends; I used to believe in the possibility of an attractive force, but a recent experiment confirmed that my suspect candidate for the source is false premise. Therefore I am back to one of the following two scenarios: Undiscovered matter, which is highly unlikely based on the evidence, or gravity. gravity is imaginary like fire breathing dragons. We can deliberate and debate all you want,

 

[colesakick]

Yevaud and Telfrow were the key people I was speaking to in my last post. I appreciate your uncommon openess in this kind of crowd Jetslo.<br /><br /> I find your barometric test a bit perplexing an idea. How would one obtain a change in pressure in a vacuum? Wouldn’t any field disturbance of a pressurizing nature equalize virtually instantly? <br /><br />Why wouldn’t it be as electricity would suggest (magnetic attraction and repulsion verses pressure gradients) owing to electromagnetic field flux? The heavy metals in our planets and stars are torqued, a perfect power generating system. Power generators create magnetic fields in lines that join and part seemingly erratically. I would think that a better measuring tool for space would be aimed at detecting magnetic fields. What am I not seeing in your desire to test pressure?<br /><br />Check this out Nature Physics Published online: 1 September 2005 | doi: 10.1038/nphys122<br />Subject Category: Plasma physics | Astrophysics<br />Kinky flux<br />Paul Hanlon<br />Abstract<br />Numerical simulations of twisted magnetic field lines on the solar surface show how the 'kink instability' results in solar flares.<br />The solar corona is a violent and highly structured region of plasma where magnetic fields rule. In independent articles in Astrophysical Journal, Yuhong Fan1 and Tibor Török and Bernhard Kliem2 present numerical simulations that show how coronal magnetic field lines can become twisted and lead to solar eruptions known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs).<br />CMEs are large 'explosions' of material (108-1011 tonnes) that are expelled from the Sun at supersonic speeds of up to 2,000 km s-1. Once free of the Sun's gravitational pull, the ejected material travels outwards through interplanetary space, often causing shockwaves that can trigger activity within planetary magnetospheres (the region of space around a planet that contains its magnetic field). The rate at which CMEs occur is closely linked to the 11-year cycle of t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>