It's a shame that it fails at making testable predictions and has been repeatedly debunked for decades, which is obviously why this grifter has no publish work in the field he claims to be an expert in. Only the most naïve of rubes would buy this nonsense. Nullius in verba, and all he has is verba.
@@filonin2something testable is much more intuitive over something that is not. What’s the latest big bang rubbish? Double the age of the universe, Wallace Thornhill predicted that just so you know, dark matter stars? Come on…….. you cannot deny the CAT is anywhere near explaining what the JWST sees.
Our DNA emits coherent beams of light (laser beams) as well. I found this out while testing my hypothesis on the image formation of the shroud of Turin (of Christ).
It is clear that you and your colleagues are on the right track. Your explinations are well thought out, clearly presented and easy enough for the rest of us to understand. It is all simple, elegant, and clear. It stands on it's own without asking us to imagine some unimaginable force or process, and it doesn't insult us with silliness like dark matter or quantum strings. Thank you Donald and thank you thunderbolts project. Thank you plasma cosmologists for your clarity, your sanity, and your BRAVERY to stand in the light. Rest in peace Wall
If only he had published, peer reviewed work backing his claims, then maybe he'd be more than a laughing stock and would even get his own wikipedia. Do you know why he puts out books instead of papers? No one will publish his papers outside of fiction.
@@filonin2 I don't see how a bachelors, or PhD makes you more correct, especially since such accreditation is seen as a liability in hiring nowadays. Or how peer review is a vaunted means of verification of ideas when we continually have data falsification crises in every journal and field of science. It's been demonstrated in practice and game theoretically to be a plainly nepotistic process. Nowadays independent publication is taking the industry, education, and even society by storm given the above issues with the authenticity and trust in institutions. What did MLK Jr say? Not by the title of the publication, but by the content of the discourse?
@@Dan-gs3kg Yeah. Nobody hires engineers without a degree, and the only science that matters is published in peer-reviewed journals. This isn't going to change.
@ianw7898 Electromagnetism is reflected on every scale of the universe, it's called the torodial field. Maybe you should learn how to communicate with people you socially inept shill.
@@davejones7632 What is Dr. Scott proposing that is scientifically impossible? And why is it so? I find it strange that a person who has been in this field for practically all his life and who holds a Ph D in electrical engineering would not have a 'clue' about plasma physics. Dr. Scott is saying that the sun is electric and all the information we have of the sun bears this out. Good enough for me.
@@MrShaziman _"What is Dr. Scott proposing that is scientifically impossible?"_ Everything. More of which anon. _"and who holds a Ph D in electrical engineering would not have a 'clue' about plasma physics."_ Because electrical engineering is nothing to do with plasma physics! To understand plasma physics, you need to understand physics. Scott doesn't. He's an engineer. _"Dr. Scott is saying that the sun is electric and all the information we have of the sun bears this out. "_ There is precisely zero evidence to bear out his impossible claims. And that is why this rubbish only exists on youtube and in self-published books. _"Good enough for me."_ Because, like Scott, you do not have even a first year undergrad-level knowledge of plasma physics. So, why is it impossible? He has electrons 'drifting' into the heliosphere to power his impossible star. Guess what? The solar wind from the Sun is also carrying with it the Sun's magnetic field. At all latitudes, all the way to the heliopause. Charged particles simply cannot drift inwards against a magnetic field headed in the opposite direction, at 100s of km/s. High school physics. The only charged particles entering the heliosphere are those with ~ relativistic energies that allow them to get some distance past the magnetic field. And there aren't enough of them to power much of anything. And ~ 99% of them are ions, not electrons. He claims that the granulation on the solar 'surface' are anode tufts (lol)! Guess what? The solar surface is ~ 99.99% neutral gas. It isn't hot enough to ionise H and He to any extent. And those species make up the vast bulk of the solar material. There is a tiny bit of ionisation from elements with low first ionisation energies, such as Fe, Ca and Mg. That is it. So, you cannot have anode tufts (lol) in neutral gas. Even an engineer ought to be able to figure out why that is. He claims that the detected neutrinos are from fusion on the surface/ in the solar atmosphere, of heavy elements! Dear me. First off, it is neither hot enough nor dense enough for such fusion in those places. As I said, the photosphere is overwhelmingly neutral. And the corona is too sparse. Secondly, we know from the neutrino energy spectra from which type of fusion they come. And, as predicted, ~ 99% of them come from the first step in the p-p chain. Not from heavy element fusion in places where it cannot possibly occur. The only heavy element fusion we see in the neutrino data is the predicted tiny contribution from CNO reactions. Thirdly, fusion produces gamma rays, It produces them at specific frequencies as line emission. It isn't there. Which is good - if there were somehow enough fusion occurring on the solar surface to account for the neutrino numbers, that gamma emission would have fried the planet into uninhabitability billions of years ago. That seemingly hasn't happened. So, that is the high school/ 1st year undergrad physics that shows that Scott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
The Electric Sun model will win out in the end. It's innevitable. Well done, Don! Wal would be proud of the continuing work. You will all be vindicated in the long run.
@@ianw7898haha mister know it all. The CAT is right, why isn’t the universe behaving. The problem with people like you is you believe in a model based on a miracle with added assumptions, take them as fact and manipulate what we cannot see to fit theory. The fact that Hannes Alfven has been vindicated has given massive credit to the EU theory whether you like it or not. Fundamentally everything is electrical, gravity and the nuclear strong force are the only forces that have not been attributed to an electrical/electromagnetic force.
@@ianw7898 so tell me how thermal gravity doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where is the work coming from to hold the gas together. It's not like there is mass or energy being created in the star, it's just a hot gas whose kinematics are asymptotically stronger than the force of gravity.
@@ianw7898 gravity doesn't add work to the system. The only time when it can add work to the system is if you add more mass (violating conservation of mass). The force of thermal expansion wrt temperature is quartic versus quadratic with gravity and density. Gravity doesn't create work but transforms and reduces it in the system. The gas will fly apart.
@@j.pershing2197 you have no evidence, and that your proof ? just observing the hot sun, so it must be a big fire place, who needs evidence... this info is suppressed, but yet you are here to comment on that. how come ?
March 23, 2023 8 Comments Thanks to Gerard McEk for posting this following communication from Aureon Energy in the Always Open thread: It seems Aureon is progressing further and they seem to concentrate on transmuting Radium into other more benign elements. Short video’s on their website reveal just a little bit more and are interesting to look at. Maybe Bob Greenyer has some more news from them. “Dear Gerard, We have made major progress finalizing the company structure to move forward with the work we are focused on in the elemental transmutation of radium. We now have 5 new SAFIRE chamber candidate designs we will be testing; they are aqueous, semi-aqueous and gaseous configurations working to evaluate the most effective solution. These designs are grounded in and further extend the patents and intellectual property already established by the SAFIRE project. Thank you for your support without which we would not have been able to continue to move forward. Kind regards, Monty Montgomery W. Childs Founder | Chairman Aureon Energy Ltd. - The SAFIRE Project W: www.aureon.ca
Since following thunderbolt and Wal, I have appreciated the on-going rich amount of electrical theory and its applications beyond a imaginary gas giant
@@ianw7898 Gee ian, you know all the hypothetical stuff really well. Problem is, the fucking probe is not even there yet. Why are they sending it, they should just ask you how everything works. I keep telling you, that the mainstream is not convinced of many of their own explanations, ( that at least is some real scientific method ) but apparently you are. Again, you cannot hear the questions Scott is asking, and are disinterested in considering or accommodating any findings in favour of the electrical interpretation, that are not generated by the mainstream. Why are they sending the probe ian? ..... ianw..." Simple. So they can answer all the unanswered questions." Discombobulated and non sequitur, just doesn't capture your lunacy.
@@jzeerod the really neat thing is that there is no end to greatness, which inductively and presently disproves the cosmological principle of isotropy.
Thank you for producing and presenting your videos. The precepts build over time. My father and brother discussed this in the 50s and 60s when I was a lad. The EU is a comforting thing, a continuation thats not contrary to my long ago.😊
Thank you, Dr. Scott. Another excellent presentation of your good work. I notice standard model adherents mentioning large magnetic fields being found “everywhere,” but never do they respond when I ask them “What is the only thing that can create a magnetic field?” Even if they know the answer, they won’t respond because it is against their dogma.
@@ianw7898 Then please make a video addressing ALL of the problems with the standard model of the sun that Don raises. You could also respond to David Talbot NPA presentation "Exposing the Myths of Settled Science" But of course, we already know that there is no response, because the standard model has no answer. What will not end well is the eventual demise of gravitically driven cosmology because it is Trivially Wrong.
@@ianw7898Ian, where do you fall on the Autism Spectrum? Asking because your use of ad hominems and appeals to authority mixed with lack of social skills are evidence of your psychological makeup?
@@ianw7898 the universe is 26.7 billion years old now… that’s quite the birthday party, from 13.8 billion last year, which is still a stretch. “Gravitational-Wave Search Resumes after Three Years and Lots of Headaches” “JWST Might Have Spotted the First Dark Matter Stars Stars fueled by the self-annihilation of dark matter might have been spotted for the first time by JWST”
It's just so logical. EU just makes sense. In a world where common sense is basically dead, this is simple to understand. Spot on. Thank you Thunderbolts Project.
This series demands multiple viewing. Again, I repeat; NASA really need to get rid of excess ignorant mathematicians and start employing plasma physicists and electric engineers among its rank.
And this is part III. What is continuous here is the theory of bumping particles and then the continuous waves, ebbs and flow of the @ @æther. Just is Not reliant of seperate states A bit of grace An aurora for elan A solar cycle as dramatic effect I'm here in the peanut gallery Resonance, vibration, frequency Love just love
@@ianw7898 So is big bang theory, Darwinian evolution, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, neutron stars, and self sustained nuclear fusion. In fact so is the notion of existence without a creator I could list on forever. The hypocrisy here is the EU theory is just a theoretical model, and the things I listed above are also theoretical models. A theory is an idea. Not something you treat like gospel that can't be questioned.
They say they got the funding they were looking for, so, your guess is as good as anybodies if they are hard at work developing the next stage, or something else.
@@GeoffreyCairney The website is still up but with nothing posted for a very long time. Even if they were constrained by confidentiality clauses, some public statements should be possible.
@@ianw7898 Either a scam or someone has bought up their research to keep it quiet and off the market. There is no other possible explanation for being this quiet.
Brilliant Don as always, and as always many thanx. But from my Electric Weather Mechanics point of view, all wind is naturally ionic in nature (a movement of charge) and as such, shouldn't really be described as something different. But rather, explain that they are the same and why. With the kinetic energy of the particles being just an outward expression of the matter's movement and being caused by the mater being charged. This maybe a small point to some. But this understanding and its distinction being very important in the understanding of planetary and space weather mechanics.
@@margarethoff1992 Hiya Margret, thanx and yes still around and annoying the **** out of Lame Stream Science. But personally been mainly keeping myself more to myself since I retired. Been writing a piece on the failure of Stage Zero at Starbase and their hopedful improvements, with their new deluge system. I will stick it on my site when we get near a finalised launch date.
@@Dan-gs3kg Hiya, yes I know of S0 and heard Ben speak at one of our Arizona conferences pre covid. Plus of course then, also know of Kongpop and we have spoken in the past, virtually. The big difference between my and Ben's thinking of the weather is how the electrical currents run in connection to the function of the earth/sun circuit. With this being a major factor and most important, as to how the weather works as a whole from a charged perspective.
@@postsurrealfish nice. In the simple case you have to admit that the wind belts are secondary currents from the main polar one, and then it gets pretty involved how a free wheeling system operates with the exchanges with the pressure cell circulation. What would you say is the critical difference between you three?
Hey Donald, the question about why academic scientists ignore the electric universe (indeed ALL disruptive innovation, my work too), can be explained by a new model of behaviour. You know psychology. I called it 'The Drive for Mastery', published it on Kindle, even talked to Wal about it as far back as 2017. And yes, the Sun, and the universe, are undoubtedly electric.
Solid presentation. Perhaps a psychological analysis of how intelligent scientist persist in denial of EU principles is in order? Herd mentality is a strong force when combined with denial.
One of the most difficult things, maybe _the_ most difficult for people to do is admit they're wrong, and that goes doubly for people who attain positions of authority. In daily life it merely causes inconveniences and friction in relationships, in more important matters it really screws things up - miscarriages of justice, for example, are almost never corrected by judiciaries, even in the face of prima facie evidence, and asking Scientists (sic) to let go of an entire philosophy, well .....
@@ianw7898 link to scientific papers that proves this wrong please. i want to read it and see the conclusion to why its wrong. if you cant. youre just a troll.
To take it farther, the sun is a natural source of melatonin, serotonin, and actually improves sight. Many "stories" told about the sun that are not true. Total respect for bringing up the questions 👍
"The Emperor Has No clothes" a good analogy, Unfortunately, the "Standard Model" people will run naked until it snows , then they will freeze to death rather than "put clothes on"
Awesome video series Dr Scott. The fact that the very obvious electromagnetism is not considered, seems like an intentional misdirection. No, that has nothing to do with anything. Look at these pretty dark matter CGI’s. Did you look at that made up picture of the black hole? Waw that was something huh?
I’ve been saying this for years it’s the only theory that makes sense without the use of dark matter or some other made up force. Everyone should listen to eric dollards lectures on electricity as well…
The solar atmosphere is LOADED with plasma, AND TURBULENCE. Where plasma meets turbulence, magnetic fields are greatly magnified and will provide all the squeeze necessary to induce fusion, right in the atmosphere.
@@ianw7898 Not wrong. Plenty of plasma, plenty of turbulence, plenty of magnetic fields. Almost none of the atmosphere near the corona is neutral. It's PLASMA. Elemental transmutation takes place in a lightning bolt right here on earth. The sun's atmosphere is in a continuous state of electrical discharge, in a sea of protons and other ionized nuclei. Fusion is INEVITABLE.
@@filonin2 It is established fact that elemental transmutation takes place in a lightning discharge. How? First, the discharge ionizes the air, creating a conductive channel. The charge differential then rapidly moves, creating HUGE magnetic fields. (See Maxwell's equations). The ions, combined with the magnetic fields, causes nuclei to undergo isotopic transformation. The sun's atmosphere is loaded with protons. There are arc mode discharges on the sun all the time. There are powerful magnetic fields. Turbulence magnifies magnetic fields because the protons are CHARGED, and moving rapidly, which by DEFINITION creates magnetic fields. Those protons are squeezed together with other ions present in the atmosphere, like Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, which causes the release of energy during the isotopic transformations which are NUCLEAR processes. www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02953-2
@@ianw7898 so what explains the multiple reports of there being gamma ray emissions from the surface? Even the Earth gives off gamma rays bursts. Is the Sun less energetic than the Sun?
@@HarryHab-w9k I meant mainstream scientist that insists with the same theory ignoring critical issues with the theory and their interpretations of the observations and experiments. For them, it is all about keeping the status quo because so much work has been done on the field, funding, awards, documentaries and extensively taught in universities as facts not theories that they do not want it to go away. The same goes for the formation of planets, the redshift, the big bang, etc. And my favourite, the undetectable Magic (dark) matter/Energy that fills most of the universe. The bottom line is that there are important characteristics of the sun and how it behaves that the current model cannot explain. The Electric model of the sun is a model that seems to give plausible explanations to some of these issues.
Have there been any challenges or responses to the questions listed by any heads of our institutional overlords yet? I’m still so confused as to how they haven’t even addressed the abundant evidence coming to the surface around this subject.
Here is a response: "The electric sun model cannot even properly explain the thermal spectrum of the Sun let alone the different star types. There is not one shred of evidence that the surface of the Sun acts as an anode. The atoms at the photosphere are overwhelmingly neutral and the voltages required by Mr Scott have never been measured. Also, there is no evidence that the Sun is connected by an electrical circuit to another star." - Stephen Crothers
Thanks Prof Scott. Could you or someone please explain why the electrons also move from the sun toward the heliopause along with the positively charged particles
In 2:57 is it at all "particles" as said which really constitutes the Solar Wind, and not just the expanding and radiating electromagnetic WAVE energy from the Sun?
Note, the voltages you speak of is basically a pressure gradient, same dynamics but instead of gasses it’s Aether/ultra rarified gas/ the primordial ooze that we all are and will be when we leave our temple behind. Just food for thought
What is the relationship, if any, between the liquid sun model and the electric sun model? Are they compatible? Dr Robitaille gives interesting interpretations to solar discharge spectral analysis.
@@ianw7898 Yet seemingly every day "those with a clue" see something they cant explain and simply say "we have no clue what we're seeing". Sorry i prefer explinations, especially when so many of my tax dollars are tied up in their blindfolds. If the choices are an electric universe that is understandable, explainable, vs another 100 billion dollars in the search for dark matter, and quantum strings, the choice is easy! Heres a theory you should love. The universe is a hologram and dark matter is the screen its being projected onto and the dark matter is hung in the sky from quantum strings tied to space time!
There is nothing particularly incongruous between the two models. Both largely agree that the Sun is electrical in nature. The EU theory admits to the plasma nature of the solar mass. The LMH theory admits to it being condensed matter and a plasma.
@@ianw7898 well, how does a star graviationally collapse on itself. Charle's Law would entail that the gas would fling itself apart with a force that strictly overbounds the force of gravity. (The exception being the degenerate case of forming a singularity, but stars are not singularities) Thermal gravity is simply a description of the main forces of a star. It immediately makes clear how ridiculous a star forming gravitationally is. The only way around that is if there is a condensation reaction, but even Jean admits that condensed matter is not infinitely compressible. (Hurr durr, black holes are type zero perpetual motion machines, and don't exist) The other thing is that the current model of stars has their density so low that chemistry is not relevant to what happens on them, so no such condensation reaction could occur. The issue is here is two fold. We see that in publications about the star, namely the redistribution of spectra, the use of partial redistribution, and forbidden transition spectra. Both only happen when chemistry is at play. What makes the issue even worse is that the most up to date agglomeration simulation models of planets and stars show that with the increase in mass of the celestial object, the exponentially more difficult it is to have formed in the first place. So we have a situation where in a closed system, the gas of a star would fly apart, and even in an infinite system, you'd be looking at exponential time for stars to form, let alone planets. We have very many stars, so, we have an issue of scope here. There has to be some other ignored force that pull these things together.
Makes more sense than dark matter. Newton never knew about the nature of electricity or plasma, but if he had, he'd have explored the knowledge a lot more thoroughly than the idiots we currently have.
dark matter === fluffy invisible pink unicorns holding the universe together with their horns locked. You cannot separate the two ideas equalled above Dark matter/dark energy is the worst kind of so called science. It is just religious dogma. ps i do love to burst the bubble of high and might muh science atheists with the above fact. Yes i am saying that dark matter theory is equal to the idea that the universe contains fluffy invisible pink unicorns holding the universe together with their horns locked.
@@ianw7898 there never was evidence for dark matter. They made it up to keep their trash , failed, mathematical models from being thrown out Decades later, billions spent, still no evidence for dark matter Cope more dupe.
I've read papers talking about fusion in the corona. But how can fusion take place in the photosphere with just some 5.000 degrees temperature??? Which is the mechanism??
@@ianw7898Read "Isotopes Tell Origin and Operation of the Sun O. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, Michael Mozina" 2005 and Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle Michael Mozina , Hilton Ratcliffe
Have you ever stopped to think there might be a reason to keep it shhhh? I think the possibilities with a room temp superconductor should be a big hint.
@@falseprophet1024 Elliptical orbits, Gas pressure without a container. Railguns with a line of sight to target up to 120 miles. Is that enough to be going along with? Breathing pure oxygen for eight days, Not one item ever claimed to be put into alleged space having been stress tested. Hubble not being serviced since 2008 and without any propulsion systems has had more or less zero orbital decay. But most of all we see too far, or should I say the sceptics do. But I just stick to what I can actually test and that would be ground under my feet. What do you call a ball with no curve? See there are generally two types of people the Conspiracy Theorist and the Coincidence Theorist. The latter being those that believe what plants breathe and in turn, give us oxygen is bad for the imaginary ball, or wearing a diaper over their face keeps away mythical viruses.I will not hold you up any longer as I am sure you are busy packing for another of your gullible travels Mr Swift.
@@ConspiracyPundit Whats wrong about eliptical orbits? By gas pressure without a container, i assume you are talking about the atmosphere? Why wouldnt gravity hold an atmosphere down like it holds you down? Like all flat earthers ive seen using the "sight" argument, id say you probably use it wrong by not taking the altitudes of the objects into consideration. You gave me 3 really bad examples. Got any more? What do you mean by stress tested? Isnt hubble in one of the Legrange points? That was the most simplistic analysis of climate change ive ever heard. No wonder it was so wrong. Im curious, could you explain to me how a greenhouse works? Lol. You ended with the dumbest political insults. While masks probably had no advantage, but to pretend covid wasnt real is actually insane.. Ps. I dont like taylor swift, and i voted for trump, though im not sure what that has to do with the shape of the earth?
Awesome, i’m with you on that. But how do you see what they explain in this video, with the probe sending data of the sun. To me, all nasa does is theatre. Perhaps they don’t even send things up there. The sun is closer than we are told, so the images of the surface could come from our stationary plane. This EU theory makes a lot of sense, but is still close to the heliocentric model. Though, we are peeling more and more layers of the onion. ;)
This is fascinating. I just have an interrogation: is a ball of electrified plasma as dense and massive as a ball of hydrogen with enough mass for gravitation to start a nuclear reaction? And does it have enough gravity to keep all the planets around itself? If not can gravity itself be an electrical phenomenon? I always thought that space curvature is not an adequate explanation.
@@ianw7898 Hello ian, you poor innocent child. Go to the doctor and ask what a healthy diet consists of ; get your blood pressure taken ; have your cholesterol measured ; tell the doc you feel a little depressed and can't sleep ; ask how much sunshine you should be getting, and then just take it for granted he/she knows exactly what they're talking about, and do everything they say. ( please don't)
@@ianw7898 I'm pretty sure medicine is considered a science. So .... wrong again! I know you can't spot the analogy, so I'll spell it out one more time. The sciences are under constant interrogation, and old ideas are eventually overturned. If any or all of the medical advice I mentioned were to be treated with contemporary therapies, you would shorten your life considerably, because they have all been revisited.
If our Sun is electric, then by extension, all Suns in the universe are electric. If the universe is electric, then gravity is most likely electric too.
I bet dollars to donuts the gravitational influence of the sun ends right where the electromagnetic influence ends. 9:42 shows a diagram we have pictures of. Classic hourglass you always cite as Z pinch. So now we now it’s energetic particles falling towards the sun illuminating the dielectric around it. It’s just a matter of proper lighting with the right combination of ions, neutral and energized atoms with the right amount of current density. Stars come from nebula anyway and most of those hourglass stars are not in proximity to nebulae I believe
We don't know that, but we do know that when getting gravity assists from other planets we have flyby anomalies where we get momentum and force that doesn't comply with known orbital mechanics.
Considering the theory of the Electric Sun, would this imply that the standard model "lifespan" of stars (Main Sequence) is inaccurate? Would nuclear fusion still be the main driving force of stellar evolution, just on a longer timescale? If so, this would be quite interesting. What would then be the process in which electric stars evolve throughout their lives? A video on this topic would be amazing ❤
Hey there, are you guy's still searching for a Plasma Physicist since Morgan left the team? He leaves a notable void in the fabric of the project. Hopefully the remedy to the situation is better than the tear that is a resistor to the progress going forward. It is very unfortunate coupled with the loss of Wal's acute intellect. Hoping for continued success in finding a Tela-ish self driven optimist w/tools!
@ianw7898 what the heck is happening? Why did Morgan do that? It seems some of the tortured discoveries are born from adversity. Mabey, it's time to amp up the variables. Or not. . . PhD. Morgan must have his reasons for exiting. Perhaps he was not used to a tight budget. Where does it go from here?
@@PureSpins _Perhaps he was not used to a tight budget_ every last flipping researcher on the face on this our blessed planet is used to that Christ, the cranks really have wild ideas about lab facilities. Their knowledge of the world probably comes from superhero movies...
i know it means nothing but at 9:31 from some reason the right image looks like an eye to me with the first part being the cornea, the next being the lens/iris, then the main eyeball it's self
I was a watcher of Anton Petrov's videos until recently when he directly attacked people who look seriously at EU as "believers in pseudoscience." It was out of character given his "hello wonderful person" schtick. It shows how threatening these ideas are to those who have themselves adopted cosmology as a religion.
The electric universe is pseudoscience as it has been unable to make testable predictions. Every time it has been tested it has failed. It is ironic and clear projection that you would suggest that Anton is being dogmatic when you stopped listening to him when he said something counter to your dogma. It's like you write the post to own yourself. The reason you think EU is real is BECAUSE it is not accepted as mainstream and you want to think you are smarter and special compared to everyone else when in reality you have been tricked by a conman with nothing at all to back his claims and you know it but could never admit, no matter how many times EU fails that it is false because it is tied to your ego. Science on the other hand STRIVES to prove it's theories wrong, it is the entire goal of science. When you suggest otherwise you simply reveal your lack of education.
ya, its very odd when people say its pseudoscience when they hear pseudoscience. how dare they. what an earth (the globe one) makes you people so much science ignorant, and think you know all and everything better than others, just by watching a few yt-videos ? others have studied their field for years, just to lie to you, and for what reason ? you really think they waste so much time just to deceive you ? you're not that important. you can also look seriously at fairies and unicorns, does that make it real ? if so, get some help.
Question, according to your solar model, what does your model predict on whether the Beteleuse star go into dark mode or glow mode or go super nova? Thanks.
Dr. Scott, I am largely in agreement with the EU model of the sun. My only question concerns the source of the electricity within the sun and in the apparent filamentation that occurs elsewhere and their accompanying magnetic fields. Is this something that could be more specifically addressed in a video?
It's a bit beyond the scope of the video and most discussions, the origin of all the charges and currents in the universe. Much ado the origin of mass and energy. Maybe the various laws of conservation don't hold (possibly allowing the creation of the universe?), and maybe there isn't a perfect balance of charge in the universe. How would we notice? Are we omniscient? It's a question that can't be answered. What we can notice is the observable behavior of what we see so far. Innumerable masses of plasma in space that self-organises in the way that we see. And as far as we can see.
Look the sun has a very powerful magnetic field. Earth has a magnetic field. So we have a magnetic field moving through another magnetic field. This means we have induction + change in the rate of induction. Earth's orbit is a closed loop....and you know the law...."on a closed loop the sum of the differences of potential equals zero".... So if we take Weber's law of 1846, the fondamental law of the universe: Action = electrodynamic potential due to the mass (newton)minus electrodynamic potential due to the charge (coulomb) minus the change in the rate of induction ....you notice that term#2 & term3 disappear because of the closed loop and remains only term1 ( newton)... But at any instantaneous time they do exist. On average on a closed loop they cancel out. The universe is electric they know for over 150 years. Wave theory in the strong aether....
Thanks, Doc! Another brilliant lecture. You're a humble man for always recognizing the work of others, but you're a giant amongst other giants, too! It's sad that greed has led so many down the path of Standard Model dogma, true, but take heart in the knowledge that you wield Occam's Razor more fiercely than bad, bad Leroy Brown himself, and that you and Wal, God rest him, have led us to real understanding as well. ❤
@@bencoad8492 when you look at the fathers fo electrical sciences, and electrochemistry, they noticed a strange trend of electrical forces dominating molecular and atomic contexts. It comes to some easy extrapolation that it'd go nuclear as well, especially with how both nuclear forces quickly unify with the electromagnetic one in mainstream theory.
@@ianw7898 then why is it that the electron neutrino flux dependent on the surface conditions of the Sun? Why is convection happening backwards as seen on the surface of the Sun? Can you answer the ten questions at the end, or are you going to spout only spurious assumptions.
@@ianw7898 looking into the surveys of neutrino flux. The temperature gradients as shown on the sunspot (so-called convection currents) versus convection currents in water, and a variety of other fluids. Which gets into another question about sunspots, with modern imaging of the sunspot we see that the umbra of the sunspot is depressed into the apparent surface of the Sun. Under the general assumption of the lower the surface the hotter the gas, why is it colder? Similarly, why is it darker? Similar situations abound with granulation and the regions between the granules.
@@ianw7898 going on then, prove it, this is going to be fun, you are claiming you can prove something in the comments section of a U tube video, that will certainly be novel, but if you can then I will change my mind
@@johnwoodhead5950 Looks like the censors didn't want that question answered. It's trivial. You cannot get electrons to flow into the Sun past a magnetic field headed in the opposite direction at 100s of km/s at all latitudes. End of impossible electric sun woo. Simple.
@@ianw7898 you prove why plasma physics is barely known, learn basic respect and spirit of collaboration or show us your breakthrough scientific papers or experiments
@@ianw7898 How's that age of the universe thing working out for your guys ian. What's the latest stab in the dark. When you think you've got that all squared away, how about you get back to us on what a mess your plasma physicists made of interpreting data using the same gravity centric equations. Sweet dreams.
@@ianw7898 Ah yes, peer review, that closed clique of Mathamagicians and their ad-hoc woo factory. Look at what so-called 'peer-review' did to Halton Arp.
What is a charged particle, is it material? Steinmetz described electrons as ancient misconceptions. Im willing to learn more about the electric sun but i dont think it fits in the material world view. Either we have matter that is indivisible (original atom) or we have an infinitely devisible electric universe.
