Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yet I use your own data and then you ignore it, why is that?
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus
NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind
Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute
Why do you discard electrical forces in space when they are clearly everywhere? How much data by your own scientists do you need?
http://www.spacewx.com/Docs/TP2361.pdf
But, but, its electrically neutral in space. Yah right.
Animals don't evolve arms and wings. They are designed that way and give birth to young designed the same way. Over and over until today.
Why would a bird ever have arms? Birds are one kind, not evolved from something else. Finding a bird with arms would disprove creation, and prove evolution. Not the other way around as you want to twist it.
Animals don't evolve arms and wings. They are designed that way and give birth to young designed the same way. Over and over until today.
Yet I use your own data and then you ignore it, why is that?
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus
NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind
Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute
Why do you discard electrical forces in space when they are clearly everywhere? How much data by your own scientists do you need?
http://www.spacewx.com/Docs/TP2361.pdf
But, but, its electrically neutral in space. Yah right.
All you have are small local effects within various planetary systems for the most part. You have nothing about interstellar much less intergalactic effects.
Those articles do not support your idea of an electric universe.
All you have are small local effects within various planetary systems for the most part. You have nothing about interstellar much less intergalactic effects.
Those articles do not support your idea of an electric universe.
Please don't encourage him to send another thread spiraling off into electric universe land.
Please don't encourage him to send another thread spiraling off into electric universe land.
Alright, if he wants to discuss this losing idea again he can always start his own thread.
The only loosing idea is a sun that is a thermonuclear core. That has been disproved 20 times over the years, but nothing ever seems to change in Fairie Dust land, except to add new Fairie Dust. Over and over it has been falsified, yet over and over you add more Fairie Dust to keep a dead theory alive. What are you afraid of?
Same with your comet theory. Completely falsified, yet you cling to it like a drowning man. I think you are simply afraid of the truth for some reason. I think mainstream is terrified of being shown to be the idiots they are for arguing against it for so many years.
All you have is evidence of electric currents everywhere, yet you claim the universe is electrically neutral. Ignore that data frightened little children!
The only loosing idea is a sun that is a thermonuclear core. That has been disproved 20 times over the years, but nothing ever seems to change in Fairie Dust land, except to add new Fairie Dust. Over and over it has been falsified, yet over and over you add more Fairie Dust to keep a dead theory alive. What are you afraid of?
Same with your comet theory. Completely falsified, yet you cling to it like a drowning man. I think you are simply afraid of the truth for some reason. I think mainstream is terrified of being shown to be the idiots they are for arguing against it for so many years.
All you have is evidence of electric currents everywhere, yet you claim the universe is electrically neutral. Ignore that data frightened little children!
When was the Sun ever proven not to have fusion going on inside it? And how does the Sun make all of the energy that it has been spewing out for billions of years?
Let's forget your electric universe fantasy for now.
When was the Sun ever proven not to have fusion going on inside it? And how does the Sun make all of the energy that it has been spewing out for billions of years?
Second what comets have bee falsified? I am totally aware of this shocking "scientific" discovery. According to Justa there are no comets!!!
When was the sun ever proven to have fusion going on inside? You lack neutrinos for one. Yet we do know of one thing that does everything observed on the Sun. Including producing neutrinos at the abundance detected.
Plasma.
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Pinches may also become unstable,[11] and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rays[12] and gamma rays,[13] and also neutrons[14] and synchrotron radiation"
You even say the Sun is mostly plasma, then why don't you apply plasma physics to it? Everything you observe from the Sun or the Universe is a plasma interaction.
The data is right in front of your face, reported back by every single space probe sent into space. Not one place you have gone have you measured anything but electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields. And then insist that plasma is not plasma, it is just containing that nuclear fusion process, like you want to use plasma in the lab to contain your nuclear fusion. Yah right, if you insist, lol. That fusion is going on right at the surface before your very eyes.
And where is that energy coming from that enables the plasma to contain that nuclear fusion? Seems to me you are trying to use electric currents through a plasma to confine your nuclear fusion. Or are the laboratories using gravitational collapse to do it?
And it is called a pinch, not gravitational collapse.
A note to Justa:
They have found the "missing neutrinos":
Solar neutrino problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So if observation matches prediction of an hypothesis this is evidence of the hypothesis being false according to your logic. Or is it only when you don't approve of the hypothesis?Beg to differ, only if you ignore 99% of the evidence again, as usual.
Scientists claim they have found that they can observe the fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion. This is incorrect. The fusion reaction hypothesized by the standard solar model to be occurring inside the Sun‘s core must emit a flood of electron neutrinos. Although the total observed neutrino flux (of all types of neutrino) may approximate the required level for electron neutrinos, a sufficient flux of these crucial electron neutrinos can only be inferred if it is shown that they (e-neutrinos) can ̳oscillate‘ into different types of neutrinos (types which were not measured). The announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that ― the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type en route to Earth is false on its face.
There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun’s center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).
Consider a freight train that runs from New York to Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in Chicago. It pulls in with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatever about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere?
The results of another more recent neutrino experiment, Fermilab‘s MiniBooNE experiment, can best be summarized by the lab‘s own statement, ― When the MiniBooNE collaboration opened the box and "unblinded‟ its data less than three weeks ago, the telltale oscillation signature was absent.
.
‖ Admittedly, the oscillation in question in this experiment involved so-called 'sterile neutrinos‘ and was not directly applicable to the question of electron-neutrino into muon-neutrino transformation. None the less, it does not state that any kinds of neutrinos
were seen to 'oscillate‘ into any different type. Therefore, the 'missing neutrino‘ question still remains a very open question despite theorists statement that the neutrino deficit problem has been completely resolved.
To further confound your claims muon-neutrinos have been observed to change flavors into electron neutrinos, those specific types in short supply, but an electron neutrino has never been observed to change flavors to anything. This adds to your problem since apparently some muon-neutrinos are becoming electron neutrinos, already in short supply by your own theory, making the actual number produced by fusion even less.
What you think you are talking to some scientific illiterate? I know your own theories better than you do it seems. I certainly know what they actually say better than you do.
But you want to magically be able to know what types are emitted at the sun, and when they change flavors en-route, when the only measurement you have ever taken is at Earth, and Earth only, which shows your theory incorrect. But we apply the magic Fairie Dust and twist the numbers any way we want since no measurement has been made anywhere else.
100 to one odds when you finally measure them at a point near the sun you are just as short on electron-neutrinos as you are now. Or anywhere along the transmission channel as a matter of fact!
So if observation matches prediction of an hypothesis this is evidence of the hypothesis being false according to your logic. Or is it only when you don't approve of the hypothesis?
I don't have a theory.Doesn't match observation, observation falsifies your theory.
As far as I'm aware there's no such thing as EU theory.Observation says there are not enough electron-neutrinos present. But there are enough present according to EU theory, where the fusion is taking place at the surface of the sun through electrical pinches in plasma. It is this electrical interaction in plasma that supplies the heat and energy necessary to complete the fusion process.
Molecules???This is why plasma is nuclear sciences hope to attain controlled nuclear fusion. You are witnessing the formation of new molecules, as the plasma binds ions and electrons together, then continues to bond atoms together until the very heaviest ones are finally produced.
If you're right it'll become standard but it sure sounds like one of those crackpot theories-of-everything beloved of engineers who wish they were research scientists. Time will tell.The heaviest ones end up being the core, while the lighter ones make up the Sun's atmosphere, just like the Earth. Got news for you, the core is iron and other heavy metals, ain't no fusion going on in the Sun's core at all.
Your solar convection has been measured to be just 1% of what you required for your magnetic reconnection theories and transfer of the heat from the Sun's core, both have been falsified. Your theory of the heliopause was just falsified by Voyager 1.
Your entire stellar theory lies in ashes. Your entire super-nova theory lies in ashes as well, and even the math doesn't work. For decades the math hasn't worked, but you still believe in Fairie Dust (thermonuclear core).
Why Won't the Supernova Explode? - NASA Science
Theory on how solar systems form now lies in ashes, and how galaxies form, that theory lies in ashes as well. Theories on how the universe forms lies in ashes too. All these theories you claim lead to your falsified theories on what stars are, so all have been falsified by a few simple experiments on the Sun.
But you just go right on ignoring all the data and keep your religious beliefs in your Fairie Dust alive and well in your own minds.
Just don't ask rational people to believe people that first argue 99% of the universe isn't plasma, then we find your own science proclaims this.
Then you try to act as if plasma is not a distinct state of matter. But once again we find your very own science proclaims this as a fact.
The you want to treat it like those other states of matter in your math your science declares it does not behave like, and then want me to accept Fairie Dust when the math doesn't work and you got to fudge the equations.
Your astronomers are giving the sciences a bad name. Twisting all the sciences to try to make their religion fit reality. Just a religious cult that has proclaimed itself a science, when in all actuality it is nothing but a pseudoscience.
They can't even talk about Plasma without violating 100 years of proven laboratory plasma science. It's electrical, so why do they not treat it as such in their math? Why do they treat it just like they do those solids, liquids and gasses? States of matter they declare it does not behave anything like?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?