The Sun: Nuclear or electric?

[editor]

You know it is funny that these are accepted as scientific fact when there are quite a few scientiests who believe differently. For example, many believe the sun to be electric rather than nuclear. It is an interesting thought.

I think it goes back to what we were taught in school. In school I learned that the sun was a nuclear furnace. I didn't hear the same thing about the earth's core, though. I'd always learned that the very center was solid iron surrounded by magma heated by the pressure from above caused by the earth's gravity.

The electric sun thing is completely new to me, though. Is it recent?

[RedScare]

The earth's core is nothing but a nuclear reactor.

Or not.

Earth's Core

[ricco67]

I think it goes back to what we were taught in school. In school I learned that the sun was a nuclear furnace. I didn't hear the same thing about the earth's core, though. I'd always learned that the very center was solid iron surrounded by magma heated by the pressure from above caused by the earth's gravity.

The electric sun thing is completely new to me, though. Is it recent?

Electric? What? They found a electric generators on the thing? I'd hate to see the hamsters required to run the bloody thing.

Maybe it's an ongoing static charge by god? The rubbing on that carpet must have lasted millenia.

Let's not even ponder solar power.

[memebag]

You know it is funny that these are accepted as scientific fact when there are quite a few scientiests who believe differently. For example, many believe the sun to be electric rather than nuclear. It is an interesting thought.

If you're talking about Ralph E. Juergens' "electric sun hypothesis", saying "many believe" in the context of scientists is misleading. Most dismiss it as a crackpot theory.

[CDeb]

Electric? What? They found a electric generators on the thing? I'd hate to see the hamsters required to run the bloody thing.

My God, what are they using to power the electric sun? Imagine all the "solar warming" taking place to generate all that power. Inhabitants of the Sun will be doomed for sure!!

[TheNiche]

Or not.

Earth's Core

That has no bearing on my statement. This is what I'd learned in college geology classes, and incidentally is what had been mentioned on a History Channel program last week. That was why it was on the top of my mind.

The theory goes that heavier elements, like uranium, have tended over billions of years to sink toward the earth's center, while lighter elements have tended to rise. And under such extremes of heat and pressure, they tend to undergo a slow steady reaction. It doesn't preclude the possibility of thermal layers or a nearly-solid core. There are a lot of forces at play in the grand scheme of things, after all.

[gwilson]

If you're talking about Ralph E. Juergens' "electric sun hypothesis", saying "many believe" in the context of scientists is misleading. Most dismiss it as a crackpot theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk

The fact that the sun has more characteristics of something electric than of something nuclear says otherwise. Also, let's not forget how many scientists were called crackpots in their day are seen as the foundations for most scientific fact today.

Since no one has been to the sun, we cannot know exactly what powers it anyway.

[memebag]

The fact that the sun has more characteristics of something electric than of something nuclear says otherwise. Also, let's not forget how many scientists were called crackpots in their day are seen as the foundations for most scientific fact today.

Scientists have been wrong about almost everything at some point. That doesn't make every accepted theory wrong, nor does it make every rejected theory right. You still need testable hypotheses, and the electric sun has none of those.

Since no one has been to the sun, we cannot know exactly what powers it anyway.

I can.

[gwilson]

Scientists have been wrong about almost everything at some point. That doesn't make every accepted theory wrong, nor does it make every rejected theory right. You still need testable hypotheses, and the electric sun has none of those.

I can.

When you cannot test something, you apply known characteristics to it. In this case, the sun, it has virtually none of the known characteristics of a nuclear reactor or reaction. The concept of it being nuclear is purely theoritical to begin with. It does, however, have many of the characteristics of an electrical entity. Does this mean it is electric? No. But having more of one than the other means it is more likely to be electric than nuclear.

Again, until we can go to the sun, we cannot know for certain.

[Jax]

Sure you can test theories without actually going to the sun. That is the premise of the fields of astrophysics and cosmology.

I tend to find theories by people without real credentials such as the "physicist" in the Youtube video less convincing than theories by people such as Stephen Hawking (a believer of the standard model ie: nuclear sun). The guy in the youtube video doesn't even have a PhD, nor is he employed by a university or research institution, nor has he ever published anything. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does make me a bit skeptical than if he was an established astrophysicist. He should focus on publishing his theories in Nature or Science rather than Youtube.

Here's a website you might like, Gwilson: http://www.timecube.com/

Edited December 29, 2007 by Jax

[memebag]

When you cannot test something, you apply known characteristics to it. In this case, the sun, it has virtually none of the known characteristics of a nuclear reactor or reaction. The concept of it being nuclear is purely theoritical to begin with. It does, however, have many of the characteristics of an electrical entity. Does this mean it is electric? No. But having more of one than the other means it is more likely to be electric than nuclear.

Again, until we can go to the sun, we cannot know for certain.

While the sun is outside Houston, it isn't really a "Texas place", so this isn't the right forum to debate solar physics or the scientific method.

[ricco67]

You mean the sun shines in places OTHER than Texas?

damnit.

[memebag]

You mean the sun shines in places OTHER than Texas?

Sadly, yes, but the stars at night are small and dim.

[gwilson]

Sadly, yes, but the stars at night are small and dim.

ROFL

[TheNiche]

The concept of it being nuclear is purely theoritical to begin with.

...yes, just as theoretical as is the blood flowing through your veins.

Any biologist can look at it under a microscope and tell you that they believe it to be blood, but there's no way of knowing with certainty. The microscope may be inadequate or malfunctioning. The scientist may be high on acid. Aliens may have abducted you and replaced your blood with a very similar substance modfied so that your pee now kills crab grass. Or maybe blood doesn't actually exist, and that red stuff that drains from a wound is really just diluted ketchup...or possibly even catsup.

I tend to find theories by people without real credentials such as the "physicist" in the Youtube video less convincing than theories by people such as Stephen Hawking (a believer of the standard model ie: nuclear sun). The guy in the youtube video doesn't even have a PhD, nor is he employed by a university or research institution, nor has he ever published anything. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does make me a bit skeptical than if he was an established astrophysicist. He should focus on publishing his theories in Nature or Science rather than Youtube.

Wasn't the guy that came up with the Big Bang theory a Catholic priest, self-taught in mathematics and physics? Didn't Einstein reject the idea off hand? Wasn't there a backlash because of who he was and not what the idea was?

[gwilson]

...yes, just as theoretical as is the blood flowing through your veins.

Any biologist can look at it under a microscope and tell you that they believe it to be blood, but there's no way of knowing with certainty. The microscope may be inadequate or malfunctioning. The scientist may be high on acid. Aliens may have abducted you and replaced your blood with a very similar substance modfied so that your pee now kills crab grass. Or maybe blood doesn't actually exist, and that red stuff that drains from a wound is really just diluted ketchup...or possibly even catsup.

Wow, that is a HORRIBLE analogy. One would make the assumption it is blood because in every previous case, it has been blood. It has been proven empirically in the past, all the time. With the sun, that cannot be said.

[TheNiche]

Wow, that is a HORRIBLE analogy. One would make the assumption it is blood because in every previous case, it has been blood. It has been proven empirically in the past, all the time. With the sun, that cannot be said.

It is an extreme analogy to prove an absolute point. It is theory that the sun is electric, just as it is theory that it is nuclear, just as it is theory that that red stuff in your veins is blood and not alien anti-crab-grass juice.

That the odds supporting the alien anti-crab-grass juice aren't high is irrelevent to my point: your blood is a theory.

[gwilson]

It is an extreme analogy to prove an absolute point. It is theory that the sun is electric, just as it is theory that it is nuclear, just as it is theory that that red stuff in your veins is blood and not alien anti-crab-grass juice.

That the odds supporting the alien anti-crab-grass juice aren't high is irrelevent to my point: your blood is a theory.

That hardly sounds scientific. It is an absolute that it is blood in our veins. It might function as anti-crab grass juice as well (we can only hope!) but it is a FACT that it is blood. Even if your analogy held water, you could still test the red junk that drips out to see if it is in fact blood, or ACGJ (weee!). We also know the characteristics of blood, so we can apply that knowledge to determine what it most likely is.

LOL where did you come up with anti-crab grass juice? You crack me up sometimes.

Edited December 31, 2007 by gwilson

[TheNiche]

That hardly sounds scientific. It is an absolute that it is blood in our veins. It might function as anti-crab grass juice as well (we can only hope!) but it is a FACT that it is blood. Even if your analogy held water, you could still test the red junk that drips out to see if it is in fact blood, or ACGJ (weee!). We also know the characteristics of blood, so we can apply that knowledge to determine what it most likely is.

The philosophy of science isn't very accepting of absolutes.

Could the anti-crab grass juice be tested and determined to be something other than blood? How do you know? Perhaps the aliens disguised it as blood or modified it so slightly that we wouldn't notice it unless we pee'd on St. Augustine as a control and then crab grass as the test.

Probability is a whole other matter. I'd give a 99.9999999999999% that your pee won't kill crab grass as a result of blood tampering, but the 0.0000000000001% allows me to say "might". Your blood is not proven, just statistically likely.

LOL where did you come up with anti-crab grass juice? You crack me up sometimes.

I don't know. I was just trying to conjure up the craziest crap I could.

Edited December 31, 2007 by TheNiche

[gwilson]

You succeeded, lol.

I like your philosophy. Nothing is impossible regardless of improbability.