Electric Universe

[slev]

If you are saying that vacuum is a perfect conductor due to the lack of resistance, you are talking about electrical conduction.
If you are saying that vacuum is a perfect conductor due to the lack of friction, intertia, etc, etc, you are talking about something else.

I'm not going to argue about this any more. I maintain that what you're trying to communicate is correct, but teh specific language you are using is incorrect, which is why everyone seems to think you are wrong.

[Gold Bearer]

Okay, I'll try to get out of the habit of referring to a medium that can't conduct electrical energy as a conductor in future to avoid confusion, but this is just one minor point. This is definitely not the cause of all the issues people are having. It's simply that people hate to be shown that they're wrong.

[cornixt]

Glad that you realise that you were using terminology incorrectly. I suggest you look up what each of the other words means in popular science and rephrase everything in the common terms rather than relying on the misleading language of the EU community who are making things so much harder for you to usefully express your ideas.

[Anderas]

Ok Gold Bearer,
now you were admitting that Space is conducting no electrical energy. phew.

If we concentrate now on particle flows, we go in an entirely different direction. With particle flows, it is not possible to light Suns like a christmas light strip - if the particles have fallen into the sun, they are not very likely to exit again; so the next sun receives nothing.

Particle streams are also not behaving like electricity - they're more dangerous. Their behavior is partly depending on their electric charge, partly on the direction and speed they have in regards to a nearby field and partly on their masse.This is much more complicated.

Bah, ok, if they would light up the sun, we would see the stream - he would certainly be brighter than the sun.
I will now read your answers.


--> done. I don't like to look internet videos, they are taking up too much time for too little information.

[Gold Bearer]

You've managed to completely misunderstand virtually every point. All of your arguments are based on misconceptions because you don't have a clue about how electricity works.

If you want to light up the magnetic forces to 10ˆ7 and drive it by a force which has 10ˆ-2. This is important as you stat the sun is electrically driven.
There is a differrence of 10ˆ9 between them, so you'd need 10ˆ9 square metres of weak magnetic lux to light up one square metre of Sun - assuming that there is some magical process in the EU which allows the gathering and concentrating of Energy in such a scale.
To light up the entire surface of the sun, you'd need a circle of the diamter of the sun (13.8 x 10ˆ6 km ) times 10ˆ9 (then square and pi). That makes (13.8 x 10ˆ15)ˆ2 x pi
You have a "wire" diameter of 145 light years if you want to light up the sun with this weak current. Without taking a look at the emitted energy. This is just the amount space needed to stack the space magnetic field to solar heights.Very simple. In fact, a little bit too simple and therefore wrong, but i come to that later.
Take a piece of paper. Draw a circle with 14,5 cm diameter. Make a dot in the middle. That's our solar system. Measure 4 mm. Make a dot. This is our next neighbour solar system. If you want to fuel them both, you'd have to make the circle bigger. If you want to add all our neighbours, you'll find 70-100 stars in this circle.
You see, our energy source has to be much stronger than it is possible, because in our surrounding there are more suns which need fuel and would take away our share of fuel.

This is not how to work out the required voltage supply of the sun. You're making some very broad and completely baseless assumptions and just running with them in a very amusing attempt to refute something that you have no understanding of.

If you say now "Yes but the current is stronger than you assume"... no it is not. It is corresponding to a magnetic force of roughly 10ˆ-2.

The sun isn't heated by magnetism.

I don not yet take into account that you want to employ some magic energy gathering mechanism (stretching 145 light years around the sun... woah!)
Forget about the Z-Pinch. This is NOT the mechanism.
Z-Pinch is drawing wires (or plasma) together, if there is electrical current in them flowing in the same directon AND have a strong enough time-gradient to build up magnetic force. If you have no time-gradient then it doesn't apply - so if you want to keep the sun alight several billion years, it doesn't apply on a large scale. If the Z-Pinch would be the answer, the sun would flicker 1 time per second.

Why has my estimation been wrong?
Well, I estimated that the magnetic flux behaves linear, that it stacks up, that it is gatherable and that i have to heat just a circle of the diameter of the sun. In reality, you have to heat much more (the surface), it doesn't stack well and there is no mechanism to gather 145 light years of magnetic flux. So in reality the amount of space needed to heat the sun would need to be MUCH larger and there is still an "energy sucking" mechanism missing. My estimation is too wrong to publish it in a scientific magazine, but correct enough to show how absurd this theory is.

All that shows is how absurd your thinking is. You're going to have to elaborate on this. Why exactly would the sun flicker once per second if it were at the focal point of a z-pinch? Also I have no idea what you actually mean by that. Do you mean the whole sun (as in all of it at the same time) would go out for some period of time and then light back up? Why? If you mean individual parts of it would flicker separately then what size? Are we taking a wave that would start at the pole where the current is coming in travel around the outside of the sun? Why would any of this happen?

Second point.
You state earth is to small to get electrical energy next to the sun. Well, the sun has 109 times the diameter of the earth. So in terms of diameter we are just under 1% of the sun. As we just found out that the sun has to suck in the energy from a large amount of space, some of it will always be behind the earth seen from the sun. As you like to point out, electrical currents take the easiest way.

your most cited plasma with nearly no resistance: It is conductive like copper. It is to be found inside Plasma reactors set under artificial pressure.
Sun surface plasma: less pressure, less conductive. 1-100 ohm resistance per meter.
massive large chunks of Iron: much less than 1 Ohm resistance per meter
Vacuum plasma with 1 particle per cubic metre: much more than 10ˆ9 ohm resistance.

So the earth is both, better conductive than sun plasma and better conductive than space vacuum.
If the earth has the bad luck to lie in the path of a current strong enough to heat up the sun, it will explode. Very simple.

This has to be by far the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen anyone trying to make. To claim that the Earth should attract the current because its iron core makes it a better conductor than the sun is so ignorant that it makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously. Look at one of the to scale pictures of the Earth compared to the sun. The sun also has a hell of a lot more iron than Earth, and plasma is a far better conductor than solid iron anyway. Even if Earth were the size of the sun, it still wouldn't make an easier path for the current. The gas giants carry a much higher charge than earth and the sun has a much higher charge than that.

I disregard your argument about thunder and lighning, as it is obvious you don't know anything about ligning storms it wouldn't be fair to attack you here. It is also not our topic. Just a tip: There is no water in the clouds; it's frozen up there and builds hail clumps big enough to damage airplanes sometimes.

You contradict yourself here. You say there is no water in clouds (of course there is) and then you refer to frozen water in clouds. Which is it? There is no reason why a charge should be generated by moisture in clouds. Lightning is never explained, they just say it happens when there's clouds. Well this is why. Look up sprites and elves. These are the connections between the clouds and the external electrical current supply. Lightning is very much part of this topic!

Third. Space as conductor.

You have two ways of transmitting electrical energy.
First, elecrical currents. Impossible with 1 meter of vacuum between two particles. Space is not at all conductive. You can fly up there and measure yourself if you want. Or write an email to the ISS astronauts, ask them to measure the vacuum resistance please. It's easy. It has been done. It doesn't need to be discussed. There are no electrical currents in the vacuum of a strength that would count.

Second possibility is to transmit energy via radio waves (or light or radar... any electromagnetic waves.)
In that case you need either high tech or you need a perfectly fitting antenna and a diode to get the energy out of the wave and into the receiver.
I close my eyes and i imagine that the sun is full of diodes.. where's the antenna? Ok, i continue to close my eyes and i imagine the sun itself, it's full size, is a superlarge antenna fitting to some superslow & big electrical waves. So now. If i accept that the sun is indeed a diode and an antenna at the same time, it could be heated from somewhere else.
Core Question: If the size of the sun is the antenna, why are there suns of different sizes? Why do suns continue to shine after they transform from a yellow star to a red giant? Why do they continue to shine after they repel their outer hull and just a little white dwarf remains?
Ok. Obviously the sun's size is not an antenna. We disregard this thought. It is not the way to receive energy for the sun.

So the empty space is not cunducting and radiowaves are not a fitting mechanism to heat the sun. Where does the electrical current come from these EU guys are dreaming of?

The stars are different sizes because they have different masses and a currents of varying strength powering them. The low mass stars tend to expand into red giants because they need more surrounding plasma to maintain them. The higher mass stars like the sun regulate themselves through a transistor effect. The sun's electrical profile at the surface is the same as a transistor's. White dwarves don't need a source of energy. Even in the standard model there's no fusion in white dwarves, they just radiate energy from their earlier heating.

Third. Satellites.
I did ask you a very clear question. Why do people not secure their satellites against vacuum conductivity? You responded something with Van Allen which is clearly not the reason. We have satellites everywhere in the solar system, a lot of them beyond the van allen belt. So if the vacuum is indeed one of the best conductors nearly without resistance, then their electronics should immediately break down as soon as they are inside this vacuum. Just do an experiment: Take a bathtub of water, put salt into it to make it better conductive, throw your computer inside, see if it continues to function. NO don't do it. All the electrical short circuits because of too much conductivity would destroy your computer immediately. So imagine the vacuum plasma with 1 particle per cubic metre would be conuctive - all the sattelites would immediately break down. Why do they function? Again, the test is just to measure the vacuum resistance. You could do it on the earth. Generate a vacuum and measure the resistance. You could ask Zealot to do it inside their brand new machine!

The Birkland current filaments connecting the sun and the Earth are flowing into one pole, through the magnetosphere and out the other pole. Why would satellites by in any kind of danger when there's no current flowing through them?

fourth. Double star systems.
There are photos existing. If you deny a photo to be a prove, we can stop the discussion. Just copy and paste "Double Star System" into Google Picture Search. you should rather explain instead of denying them.

I never denied the existence of double star systems. I said that at least most of them are assumed without any direct observations.

fifth. Mad Scientists.
If you think scientists get funded by religious scientist believers, you're wrong. They get funded by anybody who has money to fund them and is interested in their topic. If a scientist fails to deliver results for any reason, his funding gets stopped. There is no central source for funding. One large source is the state, for sure, but a lot of private companies have also their projects running together with the universities. If you think you could convince a private investor with some religious dogma, you're wrong. Scientists are there to produce the basis for new technologies because someone wants to sell these technologies. One of the latest offsprings are for example quantum encryption and quantum bits, which was regarded as impossible some 10 years ago by .... whom? by scientists.

There's no long term profit in developing and funding projects that make ue of a free source of energy.

sixth. Fusion.
It is generating energy. It is not denyable.

Again, you've completely misunderstood the point. This issue isn't whether or not nuclear fusion releases energy. It obviously does. The issue is that for it to be a method of liberating sustained usable energy it has to release enough energy to contain the reaction. This has never been achieved and might not be possible. What the nuclear model requires is that stars not only produce enough energy to contain the nuclear reactions but also have enough left over to emit the intense radiation that they do. Do you know how much energy a star puts out? This is spare left over energy after they've supposedly used up the energy required to contain the reaction. For fusion to even be considered as a viable method to power stars it should at least have to demonstrate that fusion can be used to generate more energy than it consumes. Even if nuclear fusion is shown to be a viable way of producing usable energy, that's obviously not how the sun works when you look at the characteristics of it.

For your info, Wendelstein in germany developped some new technologies to contain the plasma and to treat the neutron radiation.
JET in the meanwhile, generated energy.
ITER is being built at the moment; and is there to gather all the fusion technologies in one machine to prove it can generate energy in a useable way. Target is to produce 10 times more than it consumes.

In 1950 the target was to produce usable energy through nuclear fusion within twenty years. Generating 1 times the energy consumption hasn't even been achieved yet and might not even be possible.

Glad that you realise that you were using terminology incorrectly. I suggest you look up what each of the other words means in popular science and rephrase everything in the common terms rather than relying on the misleading language of the EU community who are making things so much harder for you to usefully express your ideas.

I wasn't using incorrect terminology. Space is a perfect conductor of electricity. What I meant when I said blame the EU community is that they've got me into the habit of using the correct scientific terminology and that seems to be what's causing confusion.

Ok Gold Bearer,
now you were admitting that Space is conducting no electrical energy. phew.

If we concentrate now on particle flows, we go in an entirely different direction. With particle flows, it is not possible to light Suns like a christmas light strip - if the particles have fallen into the sun, they are not very likely to exit again; so the next sun receives nothing.

Particle streams are also not behaving like electricity - they're more dangerous. Their behavior is partly depending on their electric charge, partly on the direction and speed they have in regards to a nearby field and partly on their masse.This is much more complicated.

Bah, ok, if they would light up the sun, we would see the stream - he would certainly be brighter than the sun.
I will now read your answers.


--> done. I don't like to look internet videos, they are taking up too much time for too little information.

And yet another total misunderstanding of the point. The sun is powered by electrical resistance, just like anything that's powered through electricity. Empty space is a perfect conductor because it has no resistance. If there's no resistance then the current isn't losing energy so there's so there's no liberated energy that can be used to power anything. There has to be resistance so that the current loses energy and that energy can be used as a power source. The lower the resistance of the medium, the more actual resistance there is when a current is passing through it because a higher resistance of the medium lowers the energy of the current and it's resistance against the current that gives the usable energy. A higher resistance of the medium means less actual resistance because the energy lost by restricting the current flow is greater than the energy gain from the greater resistance of the medium. The sun is powered by the electrical resistance of plasma.

This is getting very silly. If you want to try claiming that you have the understanding to know why the electrical model is wrong then I really shouldn't have to explain to you how electricicty works.


1. What force do you think is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the sun? Do you think it's gravity, one of the nuclear forces, electromagnetism or some undiscovered force? Those are your only four choices.

2. What force do you think is responsible for correcting the gravitational disturbances of the planets on each other? Same four choices.

3. Same choices again, what force do you believe is responsible for the shapes of galaxies that exactly mimic the shapes produced in labs by running a strong electrical current through plasma?

4. And same choices once more, what force is responsible for organising stars that are in the process of forming into strings that are thousands of lightyears long?

5. Oh, one more, I forgot all about this. What force do you think is responsible for the recently discovered lining up of the nebulae close to the galactic core so that they're all aligned with the electrical current flow proposed by he EU model?

6. Why is the sun so much hotter at the corona than at the surface if the sun's power is driven internally?

7. Why is the neutrino count about 1% of what was predicted if the nuclear fusion isn't less than 1% what was predicted?

8. What mechanism is responsible for the overturning of convection on the sun in the area of sunspots.

9. The Ibex mission was funded on the bases thirty predictions about the heliospheric boundary conditions, all of which failed but were completely in line with what the EU models predicted. "The models that have been thought to predict what should happen are all incorrect." - Stamatios Krimigis, Physicist, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system was exactly what the electric universe model predicted and so was the presence of exited neutral atoms. These have absolutely no explanation using the standard model. I presume you must think that the lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system which was predicted by the electrical model and has no explanation in the standard model was a lucky guess? There's also been a concentration of energetic neutral atoms detected outside the solar system which was also predicted by modelling the solar system as an electrical circuit. Another fluke I suppose? If you read the reports they all say how shocked they were to find the things that were expected and expressly predicted by EU proponents. There's no bow shock because the solar system sits in a larger electrical environment so the charged particles keep on accelerating after they reach the edge of the solar system. The build up of energetic neutral atoms was an even more impressive prediction. They're caused by the fact that positrons moving in the opposite direction to the electrons can't travel around the circuit so they build up and recombine with the electrons coming the other way to produce energised electrically neutral atoms. What's your explanation?

10. And besides all of that, given that we now know just how much magnetics is involved in the universe on large scales and it's physically impossible to produce a sustained magnetic field in the absence of an electrical current because they're two different manifestations of the exactly the same process (that's why it's called the electromagnetic force), how can anyone with even an ounce of scientific honesty claim that there are no electrical currents in space?


I could post a load more but I haven't had answers to any of these yet. They just get ignored because people can't make a case against them.

[cynthialee]

the solar system is obviously an atom, probably connected to Sirius and we make a molecule

there fixed it all in one fell swoop

[Gold Bearer]

Funny you should say that. The nucleus of an atom is a tiny anode with a positive charge and the electrons are cathodes with a negative charge. The electrical solar system model is basically the same thing scaled up. The sun is a positively charged anode and the planets are negatively charged cathodes. The idea is that the pattern repeats on the galactic scale with the galactic core as the anode and the stars as cathodes (the same star can be an anode in the solar system and a cathode on the galactic scale if it has a positive charge relative to the solar system and a negative charge relative to the galactic core) and keeps on repeating as you scale up and goes all the way down to the structure of electrons (they're point particles with no size in the standard model which is impossible) being the a scaled down version of the atom and it probably goes forever in both directions like a fractal.

Also some people think that Sirius and the sun are companions in a binary system.

[cynthialee]

Funny you should say that. The nucleus of an atom is a tiny anode with a positive charge and the electrons are cathodes with a negative charge. The electrical solar system model is basically the same thing scaled up. The sun is a positively charged anode and the planets are negatively charged cathodes. The idea is that the pattern repeats on the galactic scale with the galactic core as the anode and the stars as cathodes (the same star can be an anode in the solar system and a cathode on the galactic scale if it has a positive charge relative to the solar system and a negative charge relative to the galactic core) and keeps on repeating as you scale up and goes all the way down to the structure of electrons (they're point particles with no size in the standard model which is impossible) being the a scaled down version of the atom and it probably goes forever in both directions like a fractal.

Also some people think that Sirius and the sun are companions in a binary system.

As far as I am concerned it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Everything else is fractal in this universe it seems.

Probably loops back around at some point and does some weird stuff we don't comprehend {yet} that completes the circuit from macro to micro where one becomes the other.

[el_flesh]

1) http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... solarwind/
EXPLAINED. P.S.: You don't get to command what the explanations can be.
2) Timespace being warped by massive objects. Like Einstein PROVED, and has NOT been *disproven*, but, in fact, UPHELD: Weinberg, Steven (1972). Gravitation and cosmology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 194.
EXPLAINED. P.S.: Your declaration of it being disproven without reference = bullshit. Also, why would such objects need "correction"? Don't you know what inertia means?
3) The force that I KNOW shapes Galaxies: "gas molecules can collide, and do it all the time. These collisions can transfer energy and angular momentum. The energy can be turned into other kinds of energy, which can escape, through radiation, galactic winds etc., and as energy escapes, the gas cools and settles down into a lower energy configuration. The gas' angular momentum, however, is harder to transfer out of the galaxy, so this is more or less conserved. The result - a collisional system with low energy but a relatively high angular momentum - is the typical thin disk of a spiral galaxy. (Something similar, but not perfectly analogous, happens in the formation of protoplanetary disks) ...But the large majority of stars are formed in the gas after it has settled into the disk, and so the large majority of stars will be found in the same disk. - Thriveth, PhD student, astronomy.
4) You mean the Jeans instability that also forms in raindrops? The behavior of self gravitating clumps of gas?
5) Might be #4 answer as well. If you have PROOF otherwise, please put it up. If you don't, your claim is nothing more than an ASSertion.
6) Because of magnetohydrodynamic waves measured by ROSA : Nature Communications, 2012, Richard Morto / Also photosphere derived plasma: De Pontieu, B. et al. Science 331, 55-58 (2011)
7) It's called "Neutrino Oscillation" and it's been put forward after 2002 - so I see why you would not know of it. Arthur B. McDonald, Joshua R. Klein and David L. Wark, 'Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem', Scientific American, vol. 288, no. 4 (April 2003), pp. 40–49 P.S. : It has ~ nothing to do with electricity.
8) Tangled magnetic fields as the equator spins faster than the poles. You mean you never read that? I read it in my youth. Before High School. The explanation hasn't changed in decades.
9) Educate yourself: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/ibe ... M3E2tXF_-k
10) BECAUSE AT 1M BETWEEN SINGLE PARTICLES, THERE'S NOTHING...NOTHING.... TO CARRY A CHARGE! D'uh.

EU fails. If it were so damn correct; it shouldn't fail so much, at such a grand scale so often. NO EXPERIMENTS that I EVER was required to do gave a hint of the fundamental electricalicity of the Uuuuuuniverse.
Go account for that with actual, uh, SCIENCE instead of claims Scientists are acting like religious cover-up liars.

[Anderas]

You've managed to completely misunderstand virtually every point. All of your arguments are based on misconceptions because you don't have a clue about how electricity works.

Ok.
In that case i should call my employer and tell him that he should call back all the aircraft which incorporated the short circuit protection and lightning strike protection changes which i was developing in my time as electrical aircraft system architect.

The rest, i will read later.