this is not a Russian scientist's work. This is Finnish/Swedish.
The Sun Proves Big Bang Theory Incorrect
- Thread starter Diode-Man
- Start date
this is not a Russian scientist's work. This is Finnish/Swedish.
"When a solar flare launches you've some highly heated matter which is pulling away from the Sun like a volcanic eruption. The FRICTION that is created creates super high voltage currents and amperage's."
Ok, so I wasn't very clear about what I meant. Electrostatic charge builds up in clouds and in those 'dirty stormclouds' created during volanic eruptions due to friction in some sense, but this involves a charge seperation being induced between different parts of the cloud, i.e. electrons are transferred between ice crystals and water droplets etc. The actual mechanism isn't really understood, it is an active area of research. In any case it is known that it relies on a transfer of electrons, and when the the charge seperation becomes large enough the atmosphere becomes ionised and electrical discharge becomes possible.
Most of the matter in the sun is already ionised, so electrical currents flow about all over the place unhindered. There is no way for an electrostatic charge to build up in such an environment, as far as I know. You don't need to build up a lot of charge to overcome an atmospheric breakdown potential like you do in our atmosphere. Thus you don't get lightning-like electrical phenomena. You DO get powerful currents flowing about, which generate massive magnetic fields which can power things like solar flares.
Maybe that was clearer, maybe not.
Ok, so I wasn't very clear about what I meant. Electrostatic charge builds up in clouds and in those 'dirty stormclouds' created during volanic eruptions due to friction in some sense, but this involves a charge seperation being induced between different parts of the cloud, i.e. electrons are transferred between ice crystals and water droplets etc. The actual mechanism isn't really understood, it is an active area of research. In any case it is known that it relies on a transfer of electrons, and when the the charge seperation becomes large enough the atmosphere becomes ionised and electrical discharge becomes possible.
Most of the matter in the sun is already ionised, so electrical currents flow about all over the place unhindered. There is no way for an electrostatic charge to build up in such an environment, as far as I know. You don't need to build up a lot of charge to overcome an atmospheric breakdown potential like you do in our atmosphere. Thus you don't get lightning-like electrical phenomena. You DO get powerful currents flowing about, which generate massive magnetic fields which can power things like solar flares.
Maybe that was clearer, maybe not.
oh so it might actually be valid
Fusion or electrical charge, at the end of the day trying to define one fine piece of natural activity. The question is, can we use technology of sun? Can we repeat its activity in smaller and controllable scale? It surely interacts with galactic gravity and releases radioactive particles; so there must be bit different type of atomic activity is "in charge", different than santral electricity or stroke of lightning.
Whatever it is, it must be knowable.
Whatever it is, it must be knowable.
This is logical gibberish. If you have something to conclude then state that please. What do you mean by 'extremely excited atomic matter'? I do not believe that volcanic eruptions have 'extremely excited atomic matter' in their ejecta.
Again gibberish. The conversion of energy into matter is a cooling process. Machines such as the nanomanipulator that can move atoms has nothing to do with converting energy to matter. The claim of efficiency is more unrelated and unexplained baloney. Hence continued gibberish.
Let's see what NASA has to say about that.
This is just plain wrong.
So the sun is an interesting emitter of many wavelengths with the brightest part of the visible spectrum being in the yellow-green range.
I'll bet you have no idea what makes the sun appear red during these times.
If it's not pseudoscience, then where's the scientific basis to it? Your model doesn't have ANY descriptive or predictive power. You're just saying "meh, the sun's probably just being heated and lit by electrical sparks". Can't account for the exact temperatures and spectra of light, can't account for why the sun isn't collapsing under its own gravity, why it spits out the specific mishmash of subatomic particles it spits out... none of that stuff. You might as well just say the sun is a giant General Electric (TM) brand lightbulb because it makes about as much sense as what you're claiming.
If I said the Bible was only intended to be a collection of primitive tales meant for a people who weren't ready to grasp the technical complexity of the real world, would I be able to call this a christian claim and post it in a christian forum? Could I complain about biased, arrogant moderators moving my threads into the pseudochristianity section?