The sun is being proven to be non-nuclear fusion

The bottom two don't work the first does

No reason

Look the fact is, is that we don't fully understand the sun nor the Universe at this time

I'm just trying to present another perspective on how both can be understood, that's all

And the fusion doesn't answer all the questions we have about either

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I fixed the 3rd link, the second one seems to work fine for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know that little image by the names I attribute posts to? "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

" -- This one. It is better than a post number because it is actually linked to the post I am quoting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good , but do you understand where I'm coming from with all of this?

 

So I hate science now, now I see why the forward thinkers in science, the cutting edge scientist keep quiet, you twist things inside out, upside down, sophists

No mainstream articles any way

 

Well, I can guess. You seem to be a true believer in the Electric Universe. You do not seem to just be presenting a "possible" alternative for us to consider along with the hundreds of others. You appear to believe that you are presenting the one true model of the universe. You also seem to be claiming that the Electric Universe explains far more than current theories. So yeah, I think I know where you are coming from.

 

Try this site

http://plasmauniverse.info/

Which states that it is not affiliated with the " holoscience " blogs, electric universe

Just search the Site

And there is a title where published papers Are noted

 

That webpage looked very amateur and questionable to me so I looked up the registration. It does appear to be Anthony Peratt's own website and listed LANL as the organization. So that checks out. I checked wikipedia and he is currently working for LANL (Applied Theoretical Physics Division). One thing in his wikipedia biography was very interesting.

Which led me to this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14145750/...urrent-ZPinch-Aurora-as-Recorded-in-Antiquity

A better version: http://www.alqpottery.com/pdfs/Peratt,et,al,TPS2007-Z-pinchAuroraB.pdf?isYear=2007&isnumber=4287017

Or if you prefer the less technical version: http://saturniancosmology.org/peratt.php#peratt-fn1

Correction: Peratt seems to be no long associated with LANL. http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/t/documents/T-5rosterGr.pdf
(the t-5 group is Applied Mathematics and Plasma Physics)

 

So though, if nuclear fusion is what is happening with our sun is there 15% of the spectral lines of the sun (or 2300) not understood?

Now surely we understand nuclear fusion enough to know the consequences of this reaction

For that is alot of spectral lines that is unexplainable in the fusion model

 

What makes you think, apart from providing thermal energy, that the fusion at the heart of the sun has any effect on emission and absorption spectra in its atmosphere? Ah, I know. You have little idea what you are talking about.

 

Because you're not seeing the fusion; you are seeing the hot outer layers of the star.

 

Rethought by whom? You? If so, that would leave you in the best position to answer your own question. Why ARE you dramatically rethinking the "Sun theory"?

 

That means I hate knowlegde now.

I can't think of anyone who fits that description. All of the forward thinkers I can think of are constantly publishing, teaching, researching, experimenting and working to contribute, if not to discover for themselves, some esoteric fact about the next leading edge question in science.

(such as rpenner) rpenner is one of the most generous and concise contributors to this board. You have no idea what you are missing by arguing with a person of such insight and ability. Of course it seems twisted to you, because you've decided that the standard for knowledge is arbitrary, and you can just define it as you wish. If anything is absolute in science, it's the minimum standards of knowledge of facts and methods that are universally applied and understood even by beginners. For some reason this fact has left you in this dust. It seems odd to me when people react cynically to the basic stuff they've never bothered to actually study. Do you stand over your plumber or car mechanic and tell him how much torque to apply to a nut, or do you rely on such a person's expertise? Why is engaging science-educated people any different? Why the arbitrary standards and cynicism?

What makes you think there is any better "version" of science than the one we've got? What is so insidious about scientists? Did you have a bad experience in a science class? Did you freak out from watching a horror flick as a kid, one that involved a mad scientist, and you still can't get it out of your mind? Did you get denied a grant, a grade, or graduation, or some other result for which you blame others? Contempt for science makes no sense. You'd just as well discredit mechanics or plumbers, for conspiring to use mainstream wrenches and screwdrivers. Why would anybody do that?

 

Because he's a HIGHLY uneducated individual. In another thread, I discovered he didn't even know corn was classed as a grain. That's something that most 10-year-olds in all western nations know. I feel certain that he dropped out of school at a VERY early age.

Rather than learn anything - and I mean ANYTHING useful, he would much rather spend time on crank sites, and even worse, he actually believes the nonsense they present.

In short, he's a complete waste of a human mind. <shrug>

 

River, I mentioned that years ago I had seen a forum that had cut off discussion of the EU topic and so I went back and found this from seven years back and wondered if Thornhill's material had improved to include successful predictions or quantification, equations?:

EU
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...ot-Theory-and-Deep-Impact?p=436777#post436777

 

Well I see there are all kinds of reasons to dismiss the electric universe explanation , fine but the problems with the fusion theory are still full of problems

Beside the spectral analysis ,why would the the corona of the sun be hotter than the surface of the sun ?

Explain based on the fusion model of the sun

 

Further

Sunspots as well , since looking into the spot itself is dark

Plus the unevenness of the surface that has cooler and more energetic places

The fusion theory should have a more homogeneous distribution of energy

 

Says who? You?? Are you complaining based on the fact that somehow - in your state of gross ignorance of science - that you've become an expert on fusion? Apparently, you aren't even aware that the sun is a broiling mass of many different elements, plasma and many different types of sub-atomic particles with the resulting electromagnetic fields twisting all about. Something containing all that - including various nuclear reactions mixed in - could NOT be considered "homogeneous" by ANY stretch of the imagination.

 

Oh I'm aware , and so you are the expert on fusion then....?

So now explain how fusion should lead to this kind mixture

 

Nope, I don't claim to be an expert - but I actually STUDIED atomic physics, so, yes, I and several others here know considerably more about it than you.

Very simple - that's PRECISELY what fusion DOES!!