X2 class solar flair

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
There has never been changes in physics?
Not really, just in our understanding and descriptions of it. Newton and Maxwell worked out pretty good descriptions of gravity and electromagnetism, then a whole lot of people (Einstein, Dirac, Pauli, Heisenberg, Feynman, Hawking, et al) worked out better ones, but Newton's and Maxwell's work is still widely useful, just not accurate under certain circumstances they had no data about. But what the beave wants us to believe is inconsistent with all of it, and that's demonstrable with nothing more difficult than what you'd get in the second and third years of a B.Sc. in physics. I've shown it to him, but he doesn't understand it and clings to his folly. He talks about physics a lot but, like most of the EU community, can't actually do it.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
You have me confused with James Maxwell. The holes I wish you would find are in your logic.

That's a bit too much hubris, in my opinion.

Solar flare's are interesting events, and their relationship to the magnetosphere is also. Apparently, the equinoxes are the ideal time to see aurora's because the Earth's magnetic field is misaligned with the solar wind. I'm thinking about heading up to Norway some time this spring for that reason.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
That's a bit too much hubris, in my opinion.

Solar flare's are interesting events, and their relationship to the magnetosphere is also. Apparently, the equinoxes are the ideal time to see aurora's because the Earth's magnetic field is misaligned with the solar wind. I'm thinking about heading up to Norway some time this spring for that reason.

They are fantastic, enjoy yourself, take the good camera, I wish it was me going.

No I don't.

There is no chemistry without charge separation. There's no semiconductors. There is no 21st century technology without charge separation.

The real problem is in how you wish to apply it, and ignore other relevant physics.

So what's stopping you from applying what you know about charge separation to the rest of the universe, it's no different out there than it is here, particularly when the electrical signitures are so abundant? I just want to know where and why you drew a line.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Not really, just in our understanding and descriptions of it. Newton and Maxwell worked out pretty good descriptions of gravity and electromagnetism, then a whole lot of people (Einstein, Dirac, Pauli, Heisenberg, Feynman, Hawking, et al) worked out better ones, but Newton's and Maxwell's work is still widely useful, just not accurate under certain circumstances they had no data about. But what the beave wants us to believe is inconsistent with all of it, and that's demonstrable with nothing more difficult than what you'd get in the second and third years of a B.Sc. in physics. I've shown it to him, but he doesn't understand it and clings to his folly. He talks about physics a lot but, like most of the EU community, can't actually do it.

Of course the people I read do have very good credentials. Being inconsistent with Hawkings and Einstein is my pleasure, even if my education only affords me a distant view.

Yep. Their model requires the laws of physics to be malleable...

Which laws of physics are bent in your opinion?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So what's stopping you from applying what you know about charge separation to the rest of the universe, it's no different out there than it is here, particularly when the electrical signitures are so abundant?

The universe has constraints. For example when you tried to use an electric universe to explain cloud formation and heights, it was nonsense, because anyone can see for themselves that cumulus clouds don't form at 200 Km above the planets surface...the mechanism you were proposing would allow clouds to form in our atmosphere and continue to float off into space.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Compared to available credentials.
Of what? Ducks? Psychologists? Backhoe operators?
The pair of quacks has cost humanity important time with their fictions.
Now you have it. Your dingbat heroes cost time and money for people to refute silly claims of you and your heroes.
That's your perspective, a result of error.
Yeah, your errors, my observation.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
← Space Magnets

A Solar Siesta

Posted on January 30, 2012 by B Talbott
Sunspot 1263 on August 2, 2011. Image credit: Emil Kraaikamp


Jan 30, 2012
The Sun is predicted to “hibernate” during its next cycle in 2020.
A recent press release states that the Sun’s activity will slow to an unprecedented decline in the next ten years. The prediction is based on “…three independent studies of the sun’s insides, surface, and upper atmosphere…” According to the article, the drop in output could initiate climate effects comparable to the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715.
Predictions about how the Sun will behave are reliable only if the interpretation of the data upon which the prediction was made is reliable. As many past Picture of the Day expositions have revealed, however, conventional theories of solar dynamics leave much to be desired. For example, attributing to internal heating the unexpected “weather patterns” recently discovered below the photosphere is like ascribing Earth’s weather patterns to heat escaping from within the Earth. The possibility that weather systems may be externally electrically powered has not occurred to investigators.
The Electric Universe theory proposes that stars are primarily electrical phenomena and not strictly based on gravitational compression somehow balanced by internal thermonuclear energy. Stars are electromagnetic in nature, responding to the laws of plasma physics and electric circuits and not those of gas dynamics or electrostatics.
This alternative view applies to the Sun, as well as to all other stars that populate the Universe: celestial bodies exist in conducting cosmic plasma and are connected by electric circuits. The Sun is “plugged-in” to a galactic power source and behaves like an electric motor and electric light. The faster rotation of the solar equator is prima facie evidence of an external force acting to offset the momentum loss of the solar wind.
Electric stars are not born from cold nebular clouds. Rather, their genesis resides in the electric currents induced in moving plasma. The electric currents induce their own encircling magnetic field, which “pinches” the currents to flow in filaments. Photographs of plasma in the laboratory show those currents forming twisted filament pairs called “Birkeland currents.” Birkeland currents follow magnetic field lines, drawing ionized gas and dust from their surroundings and then “pinching” it into heated blobs called plasmoids.
As the so-called “z-pinch” effect increases, it strengthens the magnetic field, further increasing the z-pinch. The resulting plasmoids form spinning electrical discharges that glow first as red stars, then “switch discharge modes” into yellow stars, some intensifying into brilliant ultraviolet arcs, driven externally by the Birkeland currents that created them.
Since this view of the Sun is at great variance with the conventional view, the mainstream “predictions” concerning solar activity should probably be taken with a grain of salt.
Stephen Smith and Wal Thornhill

The universe has constraints. For example when you tried to use an electric universe to explain cloud formation and heights, it was nonsense, because anyone can see for themselves that cumulus clouds don't form at 200 Km above the planets surface...the mechanism you were proposing would allow clouds to form in our atmosphere and continue to float off into space.

What are the constraints?

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin."Henri Poincaré Science and Method
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63


For what? You think I have a guide to the universe with all the constraints listed? There are no cumulus clouds at 200 km above the Earth's surface, I can tell you that.

 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
What does the electric universe theory say about the charge of the sun? How about the solar wind? So far all I've seen from you and other cut and pastes is that the sun has a positive charge, yet there are plenty of electrons in the solar wind. Pages like this one say that isn't possible:
The Electric Sun

  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]If the Sun's voltage were to decrease slightly - say, because of an excessive flow of outgoing +ions - the voltage rise from point a to b in the energy diagram would increase in height and so reduce the solar wind (both the inward electron flow and the outward +ion flow) in a negative feedback effect.[/FONT]

But yet there are many many electrons in the solar wind:
Kinetic Physics of the Solar Corona and Solar Wind
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
The solar wind is electrically neutral on balance, but that's just one of the inconvenient factual observations the EU crowd ignores. A significant positive charge on the sun would be sucking in every electron for many parsecs. Actually it's fairly easy to show (and I've shown it to darkbeaver), given a range of reasonable assumptions about electron density and velocity, that any infalling electric current large enough to account for the sun's energy output would create a magnetic field at the earth's distance from it many orders of magnitude stronger than the earth's field. I don't think the EU people have any grasp of how vastly more powerful than gravity electromagnetic forces really are (36 orders of magnitude, in fact), and if they really dominated the large scale structure of things the universe would be a very different place.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
What does the electric universe theory say about the charge of the sun? How about the solar wind? So far all I've seen from you and other cut and pastes is that the sun has a positive charge, yet there are plenty of electrons in the solar wind. Pages like this one say that isn't possible:
The Electric Sun

  • Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun
  • If the Sun's voltage were to decrease slightly - say, because of an excessive flow of outgoing +ions - the voltage rise from point a to b in the energy diagram would increase in height and so reduce the solar wind (both the inward electron flow and the outward +ion flow) in a negative feedback effect.

But yet there are many many electrons in the solar wind:
Kinetic Physics of the Solar Corona and Solar Wind


Where are the constraints?



The solar wind is electrically neutral on balance, but that's just one of the inconvenient factual observations the EU crowd ignores. A significant positive charge on the sun would be sucking in every electron for many parsecs. Actually it's fairly easy to show (and I've shown it to darkbeaver), given a range of reasonable assumptions about electron density and velocity, that any infalling electric current large enough to account for the sun's energy output would create a magnetic field at the earth's distance from it many orders of magnitude stronger than the earth's field. I don't think the EU people have any grasp of how vastly more powerful than gravity electromagnetic forces really are (36 orders of magnitude, in fact), and if they really dominated the large scale structure of things the universe would be a very different place.


You've shown nothing of the sort. It's impossible that you could have.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
You all provide good information wrong or not. This is one subject that I am a
mile wide and an inch deep and admit it. I never managed to understand such
things in school either.
Keep it coming somehow I think I can learn more about it now than back then.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
lol I think DB needs the kindergarten explanation in order to understand.

And you'll start with the Big impossible Bang and move to pre school expanding universes and from there to blacks holes (insert laughter) zag over to hidden dark matter and zig over to invisible unmeasurable unproven dark energy. My favourite web site is called "You Stupid Relativist'.http://youstupidrelativist.com/

You Stupid Relativist . Com has the purpose of exposing Mathematical Physics for what it is: an irrational religion.
 
Last edited: