our sun part of a binary system?

[bonzelite]

"Stars do not use fusion to create energy." <br /><br />steve posts [Some are seriously mistaken, &/or dreadfully ignorant. How does one explain the sun's output, then, oxidation? <br /><br />There are many brands of ignoramuses posting on this website. Here is yet another.]<br /><br />you are ignorant of plasma dynamics, then. why is it that people who *are* aware of that field are also aware of all of the newtonian/gravity theories, too? but you don't know about plasma and basic electrical engineering principles that you learned in high school physics? or care to know? why is that?

 

[bonzelite]

colesakick, i am delighted to see someone else as open as i am to a plasma dynamics model. <br /><br />from your post: "Coronal mass ejections as loss of confinement of kinked magnetic flux ropes."<br /><br />that article is pretty good. yet it still tacitly dances around outright admitting that the magnetic fields of CMEs are actually THE ACTUAL MECHANISMS of the sun being an ELECTRIC CIRCUIT maintaining it's equilibrium --not a "ball of thermonuclear fusion." <br /><br />those "magnetic flux ropes" are the typical helix formations of high current density Birkeland currents as seen, for example, in high altitude megalightning here in the earth's atmosphere (which is more than likely what struck the shuttle columbia, destroying it). Birkeland currents are the shapes of electrical currents in plasma states. <br /><br />the article is clever in dancing around, yet exploring the idea, of electricity being relevant on the sun. but it dances around acutally calling these "flux ropes" by what they really are: current discharges in the plasma venting electrons to balance the tremedous repulsion of charge (+ to +) within the sun, keeping it from entirely exploding, ie, fission (which is how the entire sun manufactures energy). <br /><br />the article says "loss of confinement" as a sort of vague and safe way of saying "releasing free electrons from the anode." but if they outright say that, then they will have to explore more in depth the entire premise of current repulsion in the sun, thus revealing that no such imaginary act of fusion is happening! and if they did that, then their paper would not have gotten published, because anything challenging the big bang, neutron stars, fusion, is a political threat to the church of science. <br /><br />LOL!

 

[jatslo]

You two remind me of Newton-Einstein dynamics; I think you are both right and both wrong, so where is the middle ground, for a vacuum is a meduim. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

colesakick, i will explore this: [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 />exactly another sort of "bumblespeak" or politically censored "pop-sci babble." you see behind this little lie! -- there is no such "wind!" <br /><br />they use this term "wind" to avoid saying what it really is: interstellar plasma discharge from the sun. if they DID say what it really is, then they would have to explore a wholly electrical model for the sun. and plasma dynamics would have to become part of physics and cosmological curricula at universities. but they keep it "hushed" by calling it just a "wind." <br /><br />the big fear is that in exploring the nature of electricity as it flows through a plamsa medium, through vast depths of space, their Newtonian-based physics theories for cosmology in general would all topple like dominoes. and they would have to bear the full embarrassment of history and science that the the super-hero intellectual theorists and elitist mathematicians were all barking WAY up the wrong tree! <br /><br />LOL! <br />

 

[jatslo]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I want to try and stay on topic: Strategically placed space barometer’s might be a great astronomical early warning or detection system, because charged bodies will affect the barometer as it reaches its vicinity. In short: the pressure will drop when a new mass of matter happens by. Astrophysicists, could place two barometer plates parallel to one another, to catch masses of matter that cross a particular plane. Subtle changes in pressure could suggests gravitational anomalies, (leakage for example), whereas these anomalies would suggest the presence of a mass of matter. Gravity (G) is electromagnetism (EM) in this case, “Casimir Effect”. <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[bonzelite]

[ Gravity (G) is electromagnetism (EM) in this case, “Casimir Effect”.]<br /><br />instead of using virtual particles, you could have an array of probes arranged at varied distances from the sun, as near to the star as possilble, all the way up to our earth's orbit. these devices could then detect neutrino emission from the solar wind, giving an update as to the state of these neutrinos on their journey, the number of them, to ascertain that not enough of them exist at any point to prove fusion occurs within the sun. that would be money well spent. <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

Helium-3 (³ He) is a non-radioactive and light isotope of helium. The helion (the nucleus of a ³ He atom) consists of two protons but only one neutron, in contrast to two neutrons in ordinary helium (He). ³ He is rare on Earth and sought-after for use in <b>nuclear fusion</b>. A more abundant source of ³ He may exist embedded in the upper layers of the Earth's Moon. Helium-4 (⁴ He) is a non-radioactive and light isotope of He. Its nucleus is an alpha particle, having two protons and two neutrons, as in alpha and beta particles. It seems to me that ³ He ⁴ He are byproducts of fission, and not fusion; however, I would imagine that they could get fused back together, if the escape velocity failed to eject the isotopes.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> instead of using virtual particles, you could have an array of probes arranged at varied distances from the sun, as near to the star as possilble, all the way up to our earth's orbit. these devices could then detect neutrino emission from the solar wind, giving an update as to the state of these neutrinos on their journey, the number of them, to ascertain that not enough of them exist at any point to prove fusion occurs within the sun. that would be money well spent. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Actually, you are responding to something you are changing the subject on or you misunderstood what I was talking about. Barometer: If I placed a barometer in space relative to the Earth’s Moon’s orbit, my barometer should detect increased pressure as the Earth’s Moon approached its position.

 

[bonzelite]

jatslo, i understood your idea. you are explaining that in the vacuum of space there will be measurable pressure, as in a barometer on earth, of the matter residing there, as there are particles in this emptiness. therefore, the vacuum is not really that. your illustration of the moon approaching the barometer in space states this very well. <br /><br />i jumped the gun and proposed to spend the money on something else that would give extremely damning evidence against fusion happening in the sun's interior. <br /><br />i do not think fusion in general is a fantasy. i think it is not what drives the primary force of the sun.

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow"> the vacuum is not really that. your illustration of the moon approaching the barometer in space states this very well. </font><br /><br />There are varying degrees of vacuums in terms of force, so gravity is atmospheres as pressure is to per square inch (psi). Electromagnetism (EM) <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br /><font color="yellow">i do not think fusion in general is a fantasy. i think it is not what drives the primary force of the sun. </font><br /><br />I agree that fission is the primary source; fusion is a minimal secondary. I found some blue shifted plasma stars that best describe your scenario at the Orion Nebula:<br />

 

[yevaud]

Ok, hold up people. A couple of responses all in one post, if you don't mind. Simple efficiency.<br /><br />It was mentioned about the "holy church of science." Hmm. By merely making the comment, it shows a skewed and wrong view of the scientific community. No offense, but it shows that you have never been part of that community. It is not remotely like that, save for a very rare individual, or in the fervid imaginations of some conspiracy theorists. You don't do yourself a service in listening to them.<br /><br />Next, the comment was made about "you should consider the electric etc." Please note that I did, in fact, mention that we *do* know of this. And it has been debated, examined, and discarded. In the absence of even knowing who we are, don't just assume things - which is what was done. As shown by that comment. Instant disregard.<br /><br />By the way, that self-same "Electric Universe" concept has been debated here...beginning around <b>4 years ago</b>, and periodically ever since.<br /><br />As well, there was the mention of "plasma physics." Again, showing an unfamiliarity with the science, except superficially. It's know as "Magnetohydrodynamics." If you expect people to take *you* credibly, you should really get all of your terms right.<br /><br />There was mention of the Casimir Effect as "Electromagnetic." Dead wrong. In fact, what you are referring, second-hand, to is ZPE ("Zero Point Energy"), which is an effect of quantum uncertainty. And it's product - assuming it's ever actually detected (which it has not been) is not Electromagnetic in nature. It's the spontaneous generation and annihilation of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs.<br /><br />So far, it's just a neat little theory with some related and secondary effects possibly detected. But not yet a reality. I find it curious that on the one hand, we traditionally science-trained individuals are reamed by you for supposedly "believing in unprovens" - and you then turn right around <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]

The attractive pressure between to flat parallel plates placed very near to each other in a vacuum. The pressure is due to a reduction in the usual number of virtual particles in the space between the plates (Casimir Effect), and the electromagnetic force is the force that arises between particles, so why does the Casimir Effect not involve electromagnetism?<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There was mention of the Casimir Effect as "Electromagnetic." Dead wrong. In fact, what you are referring, second-hand, to is ZPE ("Zero Point Energy"), which is an effect of quantum uncertainty. And it's product - assuming it's ever actually detected (which it has not been) is not Electromagnetic in nature. It's the spontaneous generation and annihilation of virtual particle/anti-particle pairs.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[yevaud]

I don't know where you read that, but it's misleading. It's not as if what's occurring there is as if a magnet or generator is emitting EM forces.<br /><br />What it *is* saying is that there is, if you will, an average interference with photons traversing that region. And that the net effect of the two electrically neutral plates is to reduce this. <br /><br />Picture this: it's as if, at a very small scale, there is constant turmoil. The attraction of the two plates draws some of this off, reducing the turmoil, which means on average, it's easier for a photon to cross this region without interference.<br /><br />Understand? So in direct answer to your point, don't assume that because there are EM interactions between particles, virtual or otherwise, that's what particle are. Or all there are to them. Or, for that matter, that the EM forces between particles are primary. <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]

Hawking told me that. I was just comparing not implying; I would just like to see a barometer in space is all.

 

[bonzelite]

to pull this quote from the defensive guy who attempts to discredit me by waxing elitist snob:<br /><br />[It was mentioned about the "holy church of science." Hmm. By merely making the comment, it shows a skewed and wrong view of the scientific community. No offense, but it shows that you have never been part of that community. It is not remotely like that, save for a very rare individual, or in the fervid imaginations of some conspiracy theorists. You don't do yourself a service in listening to them. ]<br /><br />---it refers to the largely gravity-dominated cause and effect universe that is the current accepted model. if anyone proposes anything other than that, they are laughed out of the place. or ignored, marginalised. that is what i mean. it is not a conspiracy. it is a state of intolerance for any other models, ie, plasma dynamics, for such cause and effects. that is all that i mean. <br /><br />for example, if you said "the earth is round" back in 1211, and they were all proponents of a flat earth, you would be laughed at, or, worse, burned at the stake as a witch. <br /><br />and this: <br /><br />[Next, the comment was made about "you should consider the electric etc." Please note that I did, in fact, mention that we *do* know of this. And it has been debated, examined, and discarded. In the absence of even knowing who we are, don't just assume things - which is what was done. As shown by that comment. Instant disregard. <br /><br />By the way, that self-same "Electric Universe" concept has been debated here...beginning around 4 years ago, and periodically ever since. <br /><br />As well, there was the mention of "plasma physics." Again, showing an unfamiliarity with the science, except superficially. It's know as "Magnetohydrodynamics." If you expect people to take *you* credibly, you should really get all of your terms right.]<br /><br />---the entire electric universe concept is far older than 4 years. i know it has been debated ad nauseum for years. i am sure tens of

 

[yevaud]

Well, let's see...<br /><br />"Elitist Snob?" As opposed to you, an uneducated, ranting chucklehead? Try again, boy.<br /><br />As to the comment about the "gravity dominated universe" versus other models. Now if you were speaking os a single aspect of physics that was wrong, that would be one thing. However, what this theory says is that every observation, theory, and expected (and found) aspect for stellar bodies and the universe around us is dead wrong. That's utterly crazy. DSelusional even.<br /><br />Next, back to you, what does the comment about "back in 1211" have anything to do with this? We're not in the year 1211.<br /><br />I also don't care if the concept of the "electric universe" has been around for a millenia. It's so wrong, it beggars the imagination. The point behind my mentioning we'd debated it before is that we <b>have</b> debated it before and found it completely lacking in merit or sense. It doesn't and can't explain more aspects of stellar phenomena than I could even begin to mention here.<br /><br />Further, the comment about "new and fresh" is that you're merely trying to throw around some wigged out concept of non-physics that we <b>are</b> familiar with. You seem to think it's so new, so fresh, so correct. And it's so wrong a hypothesis that it's not even amusing. That's why the comment. If you'd said "we never landed on the moon," you'd receive precisely the same response. And far from just me.<br /><br />Lastly, the only "golden turd" is the fantasy world idea you seem to believe is correct. And you self-admittedly have no academic accreditation and no experience in the field for which to be taken seriously. If you think otherwise, ah well, too bad. One thing rank amateurs in such things have as a commonality is that your belief in something equates to reality. I don't really care if that's the case with you. If you have no schooling and no experience, you're no different than any other weird, fringe, conspiracy-theorist ranting <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]

<font color="yellow">elitist snob</font><br /><br />Well, Yevaud, there's one more we can add to the resume... <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]

At this point, Tel, there's little we all haven't been called.<br /><br />Badge of Honor, 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>

 

[bonzelite]

yevaud, easy big fella. <br /><br />i'm not assuming that this new-fangled electric model, which in NOT new, replaces "everything." gravity stays. particulate matter stays. basic things stay. it basically sweeps clear the entrenched Newtonian MODEL and replaces it with an entirely different explanation for cause and effect. and it is not fantasy science. it is theoretical, just as the vogue gravity model is --theoretical. yet the electrical model is FAR simpler, self-contained and highly more believable. and it is completely physics! <br /><br />and anyones belief in anything equates to reality! "perception is reality." we can debate that, too. "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "you get what you expect." "you create your own circumstances." "the customer is always right even if they are wrong." it can go on. <br /><br />if i see an idea that, to me, trumps another one, then i will get behind that idea. even if the idea is not even mine! you are the same. you did not discover gravity! but you are behind it because it makes sense. and is proven to exist as a force. you did not make up the theory of relativity! and neither did i -so how does that discredit my beliefs in alternative models that are ENTIRELY based in real world physics? do you see what i mean? <br /><br />if i were some christian whacko who wants prayer in schools and all of that, that would be one thing. but we're debating real scientific ideas here. the big boys are there. of course. and ironically, to make a biblical reference, it is literally a david and goliath story. and this is what i mean by the church of science. metaphorically, it is exactly that. controversial ideas are on the fringe. at one time, many of the ideas that are taken for granted as fact today were rejected and considered heresy. such is the nature of change. <br /><br />and the hypothesis for electrically driven stars is NOT lacking in merit. it has beautiful and scientifically compelling strength. maybe you do not like electricity pe

 

[yevaud]

Ok. If you're willing to state that it doesn't replace all known physics, then that already distinguishes you from the rest of the "Electric Universe" crowd. That's a good start.<br /><br />Look, sure there is an entire range of EM phenomenon that's seen in nature. Accepted. But the problem with this particular hypothesis is that it can't begin to explain most of what we observe.<br /><br />Hmm. Whenever this has been posted here, that's been the issue. Former proponents here on SDC seemed to believe that it could explain away everything, but in an extraordinarily dual-standard-ish way. Which is to say, their starting issue has been that Astrophysicists and Physicists are having to adjust theory due to new observations and new theories.<br /><br />But that's normal and expected. On the other hand, they then neatly sidestep the fact that this concept can't even remotely begin to explain things. It's as if a theory that works 99.5% of the time must be discarded in favor of something that works 0.0000000001% of the time. That's just plain nuts.<br /><br />I have read some of the concepts at some of the major sites, such as holoscience.com, electric-cosmos.org, and so on. They make a good read, but they take witnessed phenomenon and turn it into a theory of everything. That's so wrong, in my modestly educated opinion. <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]

<font color="yellow">I have read some of the concepts at some of the major sites, such as holoscience.com, electric-cosmos.org, and so on. They make a good read, but they take witnessed phenomenon and turn it into a theory of everything. That's so wrong, in my modestly educated opinion.</font><br /><br />Well said, and I agree; we can have the best of both worlds, and everything is going to be just fine.

 

[bonzelite]

right, i am not in any position to declare that everything is wrong or right. that is what i hold in disdain in others. there may be the existence of dozens of more planets. nobody knows why titan is the way it is. nobody knows how cats actually purr. a dragonfly is aerodynamically impossible. fusion may happen within stars. fission may actually create some stars. the universe may be infinitie. it may be a molecule on some giant drop of cow sh!t. <br /><br />i am forever curious. and when exposed to a profound idea, such as electric universe, i am going to get behind it. does it replace EVERYTHING? --i really doubt it. and even the staunchest proponents of it who do propose that it replaces everything are equally as guilty of myopia as the ones whom they condemn. to throw the baby out with the bathwater is very dangerous and stupid. perhaps i have come off as overstating the whole theory. and your reactions against it are as well from past idiots who have waived their new-fangled banner of truth around, with very little exposure to real science. <br /><br />i am not an "art bell coast to coast AM" illuminati freak. i am generally a realist and informed skeptic. and i am a visual artist by trade with a penchant for automotive downforce/body design and astronomy. i draw storyboards for a living. i live in north hollywood, ca. JPL is just down the street! i've been to lectures there, as they are free. one of my favorites was one on trajectory design. the guy who lead the voyager and galileo mission designs was the head speaker. <br /><br />i am aware of science and physics to the extent that, when i speak of these things, it alienates most others around me, as they have no idea about any of it. and they don't want to. and i find that profoundly disappointing. <br /><br />nobody seems to care, or even KNOW, what JPL is! or that there are rovers on mars --i'm not talking about recent updates. most people have NO IDEA that they are up there! more people than i realize have no ide

 

[yevaud]

Based on your statements there, then you will do just fine here at SDC.<br /><br />And that was spot-on. I *am* getting a bit prickly as to certain ideas and the people who express them. I suppose it all boils down to the old saw, "familiarity breeds contempt." I don't like being like that, but repetition has effectively driven a lot of us here to that extreme at times - hence the "fresh in their minds..." comment. My apologies.<br /><br />As you may have already noticed, we have continual discussions and updates as to the rovers, current space science, physics, astronomy, biology - more than you can count. Myself, I'm slowly conducting an overview of weather, climatology, and atmospheric physics (leading to an in-depth discussion on climate change) in the "Environment" fora.<br /><br />So. I'll begin anew. Bonzelite, welcome to SDC. <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]

agreed, Yevaud. and i withdraw my comments against you as an elitist snob. <br /><br />i want to learn a lot of things. and this is the place to do it. there's a lot of talent on here -- the surf is high and i like that. <br /><br />being someone into climatology, you must be aware of the overwhelmingly rapid decline of the martian polar caps. and about the nature of electricity in meteorology, ie, tornadoes as electrical events.

 

[CalliArcale]

Y'know, I think this is the most refreshing thread I've read in a long time. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It got offtopic, but after an initial flareup, everybody found common ground and made friends. I like that! It gives me warm fuzzies. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Let me also extend a welcome to bonzelite. Welcome aboard! If you haven't already, you may want to check out Missions & Launches. Several of the more popular missions get pinned update threads there, and other missions get discussed in great detail. In this forum, check out threads for images of Saturn and Mars. Several members skilled in image manipulation have taken the raw data from Cassini and the MERs and assembled them into gorgeous approximately-true-color images. They're quite stunning and from what you've said here, I think you'd appreciate them. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

thank you Calli. i will check that out. <br /><br />the thread did evolve, or de-evovle, then things worked themselves out. and i'm happy about that.<br /><br />it is not a matter of entirely walking away from what we have applied and theroized. it is about re-examining these things in a new context. and a lot of people didn't seem to want to do that. so lines were drawn in the sand. <br /><br />but i think i came on a bit too strong with the whole electrical thing. and it created the notion that i was yet another johny-come-lately whacko who believes in weather war, the illuminati, UFO abductions, cydonia mars face civilizations, shadow people, etc. --the more i carried on, the larger this stigma became. so i blew my own head off. <br /><br />again, thank you for the warm welcome! <br /><br />