Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Earth could become too hot for humans

46 posts in this topic

Earth's current warming trend could bring deadly heat for humans.

A new study that looked at reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming found that if greenhouse gases continue to be emitted at their current rate, temperatures could become deadly in coming centuries.

Researchers calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature — equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air — and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate and future climate models are correct.

Temperatures this unbearable for humans haven’t been seen during the existence of hominids — the primate family that includes ancient humans — but they did occur about 50 million years ago.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's not a way that we humans can cause that amount of heat to happen here on Earth without the Earth its self rising in heat. So to be honest I could see the Earth getting colder for humans instead of hotter because the Earth carries heat through the ocean currents. now too much heat means more ice melt. more ice melt means more fresh water in the salt water oceans. too much fresh water causes an unbalance in the salt and fresh water mixture so the oceans would need to fix them selves. Which would mean that it would shut down and the Earth's heat would stop. Not to mention, look at the weather now, it's been up and down like a roller coaster ride and overall, it's been comfortable outside just humid. So Global Warming to me is a load of crap to make people spend more money they don't have in the name of something that doesn't really matter anyways because nature will fight back eventually by telling the human race to chill out. Just my thoughts though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's not a way that we humans can cause that amount of heat to happen here on Earth without the Earth its self rising in heat. So to be honest I could see the Earth getting colder for humans instead of hotter because the Earth carries heat through the ocean currents. now too much heat means more ice melt. more ice melt means more fresh water in the salt water oceans. too much fresh water causes an unbalance in the salt and fresh water mixture so the oceans would need to fix them selves. Which would mean that it would shut down and the Earth's heat would stop. Not to mention, look at the weather now, it's been up and down like a roller coaster ride and overall, it's been comfortable outside just humid. So Global Warming to me is a load of crap to make people spend more money they don't have in the name of something that doesn't really matter anyways because nature will fight back eventually by telling the human race to chill out. Just my thoughts though.

It really isn't a load of crap to make people spend, it is well researched science spanning over 40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's not a way that we humans can cause that amount of heat to happen here on Earth without the Earth its self rising in heat. So to be honest I could see the Earth getting colder for humans instead of hotter because the Earth carries heat through the ocean currents. now too much heat means more ice melt. more ice melt means more fresh water in the salt water oceans. too much fresh water causes an unbalance in the salt and fresh water mixture so the oceans would need to fix them selves. Which would mean that it would shut down and the Earth's heat would stop. Not to mention, look at the weather now, it's been up and down like a roller coaster ride and overall, it's been comfortable outside just humid. So Global Warming to me is a load of crap to make people spend more money they don't have in the name of something that doesn't really matter anyways because nature will fight back eventually by telling the human race to chill out. Just my thoughts though.

Civilisation could not survive the types of change you suggest. We may not fry, and we may not die on mass - but our culture would be all but gone. Our culture is so complex that it is not very robust. Two years of serious drought (once the aquifers finally are drained to bedrock) in the bread baskets of the world and we would be starving and rioting and fighting over diminishing food reserves.

Change is not good - and you have painted a picture of constant violent change as the planet tried to stabalize the additional energy inputs.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a way to keep our culture through all this anyway. It's built off the very things that are being blamed. . . so, it's a question of whether we grab control and fix ourselves, or cause mother nature to force it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a way to keep our culture through all this anyway. It's built off the very things that are being blamed. . . so, it's a question of whether we grab control and fix ourselves, or cause mother nature to force it.

There really is no proof, but I believe the center of our planet is like a little sun. This tiny sun is growing and will one day become a star or gas giant like Jupiter. So if the heat-increase is internal then there really isn't much we can do about it. The oceans will eventually evaporate into a dense atmosphere and our magnetic field may weaken completely because of the higher concentration of water in the atmosphere. The solar wind may then reek havoc and blow the atmosphere away. Also prophecy about humans burning in the next end of the world would make sense if the planet combusted from the center outward. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is no proof, but I believe the center of our planet is like a little sun. This tiny sun is growing and will one day become a star or gas giant like Jupiter. So if the heat-increase is internal then there really isn't much we can do about it. The oceans will eventually evaporate into a dense atmosphere and our magnetic field may weaken completely because of the higher concentration of water in the atmosphere. The solar wind may then reek havoc and blow the atmosphere away. Also prophecy about humans burning in the next end of the world would make sense if the planet combusted from the center outward. Just a thought.

You are right - not only is there not any proof for your claim, but that also the centre of the Earth (the Inner Core) is composed of a solid rotating mass of Iron. No fusion happening there, and the mass of the entire Earth is way too small to become a star. There is no reason to believe that the warming is due to the core heating up, and I cannot imagine a natural mechanism that could produce such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right - not only is there not any proof for your claim, but that also the center of the Earth (the Inner Core) is composed of a solid rotating mass of Iron. No fusion happening there, and the mass of the entire Earth is way too small to become a star. There is no reason to believe that the warming is due to the core heating up, and I cannot imagine a natural mechanism that could produce such.

**Disclaimer...

Now of course this is all theory just like the fusion model. So technically neither of us is right or wrong but let me present you with a different idea and evidence from confirmed data:

It all depends on which model of the universe you accept. I for one, haven't found any evidence that fusion can even happen, so I accept the electrical model of the Universe. The big reason being the corona of the sun... why is it there if the sun is a fusion reactor? The only reason the corona can exist is if the sun is an electrical anode. Unless you might have another explanation that I haven't read?

In an electric model the sun would be a giant Iron based sphere inducting magnetic energy from the surrounding space ( reason for corona ) as it moves through the galactic field. The magnetic flux and heat at the surface would be so strong that it causes the plasma layer we see from the surrounding elements in space.

Magnetic Energy in, Charged particles out as long as the sun keeps moving through space.

So relating this to the Earth, the core is a solid Iron sphere (no debate there), the next layer is a liquid plasma just like the suns flaring surface we see. Then you get the 'D' layer between the Plasma Sphere and the Lower Mantle. The 'D' layer would be an area that transfers electrical and thermal energy toward the mantle like the corona of the sun. The mantle is the same, lower, upper, crust.

The magnetic field is inducted the same way as the sun as long as Earth is moving through the field of the Sun/Galaxy/Space it will have a magnetic field and liquid plasma outer-core.

Just in case you have doubts:

Electric Sun Verified

NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly.
- You should reconsider the fusion model sir, it is really out dated.

Nasa Prooves Birklands Theory:

The Electric Sun Hypothesis

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

The Electric Sun

Google Search: Electrical Model Sun

I wrote a book called 'Magnetic Universe' which explains how the universe's power source is magnetic in principle based on the Electric model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Disclaimer...

Now of course this is all theory just like the fusion model. So technically neither of us is right or wrong but let me present you with a different idea and evidence from confirmed data:

It all depends on which model of the universe you accept. I for one, haven't found any evidence that fusion can even happen, so I accept the electrical model of the Universe. The big reason being the corona of the sun... why is it there if the sun is a fusion reactor? The only reason the corona can exist is if the sun is an electrical anode. Unless you might have another explanation that I haven't read?

In an electric model the sun would be a giant Iron based sphere inducting magnetic energy from the surrounding space ( reason for corona ) as it moves through the galactic field. The magnetic flux and heat at the surface would be so strong that it causes the plasma layer we see from the surrounding elements in space.

Magnetic Energy in, Charged particles out as long as the sun keeps moving through space.

So relating this to the Earth, the core is a solid Iron sphere (no debate there), the next layer is a liquid plasma just like the suns flaring surface we see. Then you get the 'D' layer between the Plasma Sphere and the Lower Mantle. The 'D' layer would be an area that transfers electrical and thermal energy toward the mantle like the corona of the sun. The mantle is the same, lower, upper, crust.

The magnetic field is inducted the same way as the sun as long as Earth is moving through the field of the Sun/Galaxy/Space it will have a magnetic field and liquid plasma outer-core.

Just in case you have doubts:

Electric Sun Verified

- You should reconsider the fusion model sir, it is really out dated.

Nasa Prooves Birklands Theory:

The Electric Sun Hypothesis

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

The Electric Sun

Google Search: Electrical Model Sun

I wrote a book called 'Magnetic Universe' which explains how the universe's power source is magnetic in principle based on the Electric model.

I think you need to get a better understanding of what a theory in science is.

Firstly, you can't ever prove a theory, you attempt to falsify them, but that is all. Theories are fluid explanations using empirical evidence for observable facts. They are not pure conjecture, which is what you are countering science with and I am sorry but none of your sources have any scientific validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to get a better understanding of what a theory in science is.

Firstly, you can't ever prove a theory, you attempt to falsify them, but that is all. Theories are fluid explanations using empirical evidence for observable facts. They are not pure conjecture, which is what you are countering science with and I am sorry but none of your sources have any scientific validity.

Dont believe me I'm a nobody in the world of physics.

Take it from people who would know:

"Essential to the received theory is the conviction that inside the sun is a steep temperature gradient, falling toward the photosphere, along which the internal energy flows outward. If we stack this internal temperature gradient against the observed temperature gradient in the solar atmosphere, which falls steeply inward, toward the photosphere, we find we have diagrammed a physical absurdity: The two gradients produce a trough at the photosphere, which implies that thermal energy should collect and become stuck there until it raises the temperature and eliminates the trough. That this does not occur seems to bother no one. But suppose we remove the hypothetical internal temperature gradient. What then? Why then we see that the sun's bloated atmosphere and the "wrong-way" temperature gradient in that atmosphere point strongly to an external source of solar energy."

- Ralph E. Juergens, (1972)

"In seeking a source of energy other than contraction the first question is whether the energy to be radiated in future is now hidden in the star or whether it is being picked up continuously from outside. Suggestions have been made that the impact of meteoric matter provides the heat, or that there is some subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks up. Strong objection may be urged against these hypotheses individually; but it is unnecessary to consider them in detail because they have arisen through a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. No source of energy is of any avail unless it liberates energy in the deep interior of the star."

- A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars.

"The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun's energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun."

- Ralph E. Juergens (1980)

"The problem of the source of a star's energy will be considered; by a process of exhaustion we are driven to conclude that the only possible source of a star's energy is subatomic; yet it must be confessed that the hypothesis shows little disposition to accommodate itself to the detailed requirements of observation, and a critic might count up a large number of 'fatal' objections."

- A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars.

"We should expect on the basis of a straightforward calculation that the Sun would 'end' itself in a simple and rather prosaic way; that with increasing height above the photosphere the density of the solar material would decrease quite rapidly, until it became pretty well negligible only two or three kilometres up ... Instead, the atmosphere is a huge bloated envelope."

- F. Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy

"The amazing zoo of structures and dynamic phenomena on the Sun are not well understood in general, though they have been observed for a very long time."

- Dan Kiselman, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Institute for Solar Physics

"The idea of turbulent convection delivering endless loads of energy upward from the unseen depths of the Sun conflicts not only with the ordered structure of the photosphere but also with the observable integrity of individual granules. The nodules of plasma appear, endure for some minutes, then fade away... Minnaert once published an analysis of photospheric behavior in terms of the Reynolds number. He found the critical value to lie near 103. The actual Reynolds number of the photosphere, as calculated from observable characteristics of the plasma, turned out to be in excess of 1011, which is to say, at least 100 million times greater than the critical value. Clearly, then, any convective motion in the photosphere should be violently turbulent and highly disordered, as Minnaert indeed pointed out. Practically in his next breath, however, Minnaert asserted that 'The variable forms of the granules and their short lifetimes are evidence of nonstationary convection.' Such an abrupt about-face is startling. Apparently Minnaert, himself, was disquieted; he immediately set out to minimize his non sequitur by suggesting ways and means for disregarding the classical theory of turbulence to make things come out right for the photosphere."

- Ralph E. Juergens.

The following quotes are from a recent colloquium by a well-known astrophysicist and expert on stellar interiors:

“If we understand what is going on in the Sun, we can turn and look outwards to every other star and transfer that knowledge to those other stars.”

“The standard solar model predicts no motion in the photosphere. The solar surface is a mess.”

“There is a gap in our understanding of stellar evolution. Some of the things we're finding are not what we expected.”

“The radii of some stars are out by ±10 percent according to our models.”

Something is clearly wrong.”

“We need theories that are not so infinitely flexible.”

The renowned solar astrophysicist, Eugene N. Parker, wrote in his Special Historical Review article in Solar Physics:

"..the pedestrian Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding. We need look no farther than the sunspot, or the intensely filamentary structure of the photospheric magnetic field, or the spicules, or the origin of the small magnetic bipoles that continually emerge in the supergranules, or the heat source that maintains the expanding gas in the coronal hole, or the effective magnetic diffusion that is so essential for understanding the solar dynamo, or the peculiar internal rotation inferred from helioseismology, or the variation of solar brightness with the level of solar activity, to name a few of the more obvious mysterious macrophysical phenomena exhibited by the Sun."

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" - Nikola Tesla.

What were you saying about observation?

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont believe me I'm a nobody in the world of physics.

Take it from people who would know:

"Essential to the received theory is the conviction that inside the sun is a steep temperature gradient, falling toward the photosphere, along which the internal energy flows outward. If we stack this internal temperature gradient against the observed temperature gradient in the solar atmosphere, which falls steeply inward, toward the photosphere, we find we have diagrammed a physical absurdity: The two gradients produce a trough at the photosphere, which implies that thermal energy should collect and become stuck there until it raises the temperature and eliminates the trough. That this does not occur seems to bother no one. But suppose we remove the hypothetical internal temperature gradient. What then? Why then we see that the sun's bloated atmosphere and the "wrong-way" temperature gradient in that atmosphere point strongly to an external source of solar energy."

- Ralph E. Juergens, (1972)

"In seeking a source of energy other than contraction the first question is whether the energy to be radiated in future is now hidden in the star or whether it is being picked up continuously from outside. Suggestions have been made that the impact of meteoric matter provides the heat, or that there is some subtle radiation traversing space which the star picks up. Strong objection may be urged against these hypotheses individually; but it is unnecessary to consider them in detail because they have arisen through a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. No source of energy is of any avail unless it liberates energy in the deep interior of the star."

- A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars.

"The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun's energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun."

- Ralph E. Juergens (1980)

"The problem of the source of a star's energy will be considered; by a process of exhaustion we are driven to conclude that the only possible source of a star's energy is subatomic; yet it must be confessed that the hypothesis shows little disposition to accommodate itself to the detailed requirements of observation, and a critic might count up a large number of 'fatal' objections."

- A. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars.

"We should expect on the basis of a straightforward calculation that the Sun would 'end' itself in a simple and rather prosaic way; that with increasing height above the photosphere the density of the solar material would decrease quite rapidly, until it became pretty well negligible only two or three kilometres up ... Instead, the atmosphere is a huge bloated envelope."

- F. Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy

"The amazing zoo of structures and dynamic phenomena on the Sun are not well understood in general, though they have been observed for a very long time."

- Dan Kiselman, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Institute for Solar Physics

"The idea of turbulent convection delivering endless loads of energy upward from the unseen depths of the Sun conflicts not only with the ordered structure of the photosphere but also with the observable integrity of individual granules. The nodules of plasma appear, endure for some minutes, then fade away... Minnaert once published an analysis of photospheric behavior in terms of the Reynolds number. He found the critical value to lie near 103. The actual Reynolds number of the photosphere, as calculated from observable characteristics of the plasma, turned out to be in excess of 1011, which is to say, at least 100 million times greater than the critical value. Clearly, then, any convective motion in the photosphere should be violently turbulent and highly disordered, as Minnaert indeed pointed out. Practically in his next breath, however, Minnaert asserted that 'The variable forms of the granules and their short lifetimes are evidence of nonstationary convection.' Such an abrupt about-face is startling. Apparently Minnaert, himself, was disquieted; he immediately set out to minimize his non sequitur by suggesting ways and means for disregarding the classical theory of turbulence to make things come out right for the photosphere."

- Ralph E. Juergens.

The following quotes are from a recent colloquium by a well-known astrophysicist and expert on stellar interiors:

“If we understand what is going on in the Sun, we can turn and look outwards to every other star and transfer that knowledge to those other stars.”

“The standard solar model predicts no motion in the photosphere. The solar surface is a mess.”

“There is a gap in our understanding of stellar evolution. Some of the things we're finding are not what we expected.”

“The radii of some stars are out by ±10 percent according to our models.”

Something is clearly wrong.”

“We need theories that are not so infinitely flexible.”

The renowned solar astrophysicist, Eugene N. Parker, wrote in his Special Historical Review article in Solar Physics:

"..the pedestrian Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding. We need look no farther than the sunspot, or the intensely filamentary structure of the photospheric magnetic field, or the spicules, or the origin of the small magnetic bipoles that continually emerge in the supergranules, or the heat source that maintains the expanding gas in the coronal hole, or the effective magnetic diffusion that is so essential for understanding the solar dynamo, or the peculiar internal rotation inferred from helioseismology, or the variation of solar brightness with the level of solar activity, to name a few of the more obvious mysterious macrophysical phenomena exhibited by the Sun."

“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" - Nikola Tesla.

What were you saying about observation?

Thank you.

You also don't understand science evidence and apparently, good sourcing and the fact that books are not were science is done, it is done in journals.

Quoting is valueless, especially with pseudo-scientists like Juergen who wrote in a journal based on a specific, conjectured and falsified idea. Eddington, who died in 1944.

Hoyle in a book from 1955.

Unreferenced quotes which have no value what so ever.

A quote that offers no support at all, but is rather used as fallacious argument saying we don't know everything or there are things we are working on so what I believe has credence, which is an utter nonsense and a completely ridiculous angle to take.

You have no observations there at all, sorry, you have some quotes from books over half a century old and from a pseudo-scientist writing and the one real quote you have doesn't even deal with what you are writing about but is put in no more than a distraction at best and immense dishonesty at worst. All you have at present is a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is and some pseudo-scientific websites.

I suggest you garner a better understanding of scientific method.

A top of that I call academic fraud on one of your links regarding IBEX and NASA, because their results continue to falsify the pseudo-science of "electric sun model" as it only shows neutral atoms, not charged atoms going in the direction of the sun (a long with the massive lack of evidence coming in the last 40 odd years of space flight and satellite readings).

Sorry but electric sun has as much value and scientific worth as intelligent design, homoeopathy or astrology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planets are planets, and if our planet could become a sun, I should think Sol would have begun as a very cold planet. No dice, I think Electric sun is a pipe-dream, not science. Before you can take a source as anything, you have to research the particulars of the source itself. Who wrote it? What are their credentials? You don't take astrophysics lessons from a fisherman unless you come to find out that fisherman is a retired astrophysicist who spends his non-fishing time staying on top of the latest science in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planets are planets, and if our planet could become a sun, I should think Sol would have begun as a very cold planet. No dice, I think Electric sun is a pipe-dream, not science. Before you can take a source as anything, you have to research the particulars of the source itself. Who wrote it? What are their credentials? You don't take astrophysics lessons from a fisherman unless you come to find out that fisherman is a retired astrophysicist who spends his non-fishing time staying on top of the latest science in the field.

In the short term - two and a half years - anything can happen until total climate collapse in 2012, followed by new Ice Age. But before that, it is most likely that certain parts of the earth will be scorched, both from above and below, i.e. solar max flares and proximity of brown dwarf, the latter causing geological stress, i.e. giant quakes, volcanic eruptions, lands splitting open releasing methane and lava flows, petro-chemicals - a real burn-out, seas faring no better, would boil. Things have already started.

timewaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mayans were history's internet trolls, not prophets. 2012 on its own wouldn't bge the end anyway, just the beginning, if you really want to believe them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2012 on its own wouldn't bge the end anyway, just the beginning, if you really want to believe them.

I totally agree with you. If we just don't act now, it will get worse!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planets are planets, and if our planet could become a sun, I should think Sol would have begun as a very cold planet. No dice, I think Electric sun is a pipe-dream, not science. Before you can take a source as anything, you have to research the particulars of the source itself. Who wrote it? What are their credentials? You don't take astrophysics lessons from a fisherman unless you come to find out that fisherman is a retired astrophysicist who spends his non-fishing time staying on top of the latest science in the field.

Personally I think the Electric or Plasma Universe theory makes a great deal of sense but what do I know especially about science.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

It all sounds pretty convincing when compared to the various alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the Electric or Plasma Universe theory makes a great deal of sense but what do I know especially about science.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

It all sounds pretty convincing when compared to the various alternatives.

I agree that certain aspects of it clear up a lot of the contradictions implicit in modern physics and cosmology. However I am not a cosmologist or a particle physicist so really am not qualified to comment.

Large chunks of physics are well overdue for a massive overhaul and it is only academic inertia which is stopping it happening.

Thomas Townsend Brown did a lot of experimental research on electrogravitics which demonstrate a definate correlation between high potential electricity and gravity distortion. It is one of the only physical explanations around for what gravity actually is.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that certain aspects of it clear up a lot of the contradictions implicit in modern physics and cosmology. However I am not a cosmologist or a particle physicist so really am not qualified to comment.

Large chunks of physics are well overdue for a massive overhaul and it is only academic inertia which is stopping it happening.

Thomas Townsend Brown did a lot of experimental research on electrogravitics which demonstrate a definate correlation between high potential electricity and gravity distortion. It is one of the only physical explanations around for what gravity actually is.

Br Cornelius

That may be, but current research pretty much keeps the electric universe idea as pseudo-scientific as it is completely contradictory to all the evidence. It has no scientific basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be, but current research pretty much keeps the electric universe idea as pseudo-scientific as it is completely contradictory to all the evidence. It has no scientific basis.

Well I tried not getting involved but I have to ask...

What evidence? What evidence disproves the Electric Sun/Universe?

I have to hear this...

It is completely ignorant to dismiss electric/plasma/magnetic physics out of cosmology...wouldn't you say?

Since no one here is Einstein or Steven Hawkins, telling you is like telling a priest that God doesn't exist. The priest wont believe it until the bible tells him also.

You are believing in fifty year old physics that completely disregards electricity in space and that is a huge mistake. I guess you are saying that we Earthlings have the only planet privileged enough to support electricity Since the cosmos has nothing to do with it.

Much of the current knowledge of the Sun-Earth connection can be historically credited to Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven, among others, who could back up their statements with experimental data, that today is proven correct. Electrical engineering and plasma physics ties in very well with several established fields of science, so it's not some separate invented field that one can freely decide to include or not include into astrophysics.

Electric Sun

Cheers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I tried not getting involved but I have to ask...

What evidence? What evidence disproves the Electric Sun/Universe?

I have to hear this...

It is completely ignorant to dismiss electric/plasma/magnetic physics out of cosmology...wouldn't you say?

Since no one here is Einstein or Steven Hawkins, telling you is like telling a priest that God doesn't exist. The priest wont believe it until the bible tells him also.

You are believing in fifty year old physics that completely disregards electricity in space and that is a huge mistake. I guess you are saying that we Earthlings have the only planet privileged enough to support electricity Since the cosmos has nothing to do with it.

Much of the current knowledge of the Sun-Earth connection can be historically credited to Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven, among others, who could back up their statements with experimental data, that today is proven correct. Electrical engineering and plasma physics ties in very well with several established fields of science, so it's not some separate invented field that one can freely decide to include or not include into astrophysics.

Electric Sun

Cheers...

Firstly there is no scientific evidence to support it, that alone makes it unscientific, when you last tried to pass this stuff of as science you relied on outdated links about our lack of knowledge and a pseudo-scientific website which misrepresented data.

Maybe you should read what I put up about this last time ;).

And you don't prove anything in science.

Just to add, making stuff up based on baseless claims found on the internet is very much not how you do science. This idea has no maths, no papers, no experimental data, no modelling data and not observational evidence in support of it. It has no place in science because it is fiction based on ignorance.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly there is no scientific evidence to support it, that alone makes it unscientific, when you last tried to pass this stuff of as science you relied on outdated links about our lack of knowledge and a pseudo-scientific website which misrepresented data.

Do you even know who Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven were?

Scientist who provided scientific theories that cosmology has electric properties that today has answer all observed "problems" with the current model. Which has not been unproven since. Even modern cosmologists admit they are wrong. But they will just come up with strange things like Dark Matter to replace electric phenomenon.

Have you read anything about Electric Universe to make your own determination?

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pseudo science versus pseudo skeptics me thinks. The argument against the EU theory seems to be that there is no recognizable electric charge. However, this can be explained as when there is an equal positive and negative charge it appears to be no charge when in fact it has just been cancelled out.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/descott.htm

Worth watching this carefully to see if any new developments come about. Particularly with regard to climate change as if it is cosmic rays that is warming the entire solar system then at least could try and counteract what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even know who Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven were?

Scientist who provided scientific theories that cosmology has electric properties that today has answer all observed "problems" with the current model. Which has not been unproven since. Even modern cosmologists admit they are wrong. But they will just come up with strange things like Dark Matter to replace electric phenomenon.

Have you read anything about Electric Universe to make your own determination?

Peter

Yes I know who they are one, did work over a century ago an one was an electrical engineer. I suggest you look up that thing called evidence.

I have read about electric universe, it isn't science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pseudo science versus pseudo skeptics me thinks. The argument against the EU theory seems to be that there is no recognizable electric charge. However, this can be explained as when there is an equal positive and negative charge it appears to be no charge when in fact it has just been cancelled out.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/descott.htm

Worth watching this carefully to see if any new developments come about. Particularly with regard to climate change as if it is cosmic rays that is warming the entire solar system then at least could try and counteract what is going on.

Sorry Slim, that simply looks like like Dr Scott is whinging because his idea's are neither supported and that some dared to question him. He puts forward no scientific basis or mathematics to back his claims.

This probably why he is an engineer (using science) rather than a scientist (advancing science).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Slim, that simply looks like like Dr Scott is whinging because his idea's are neither supported and that some dared to question him. He puts forward no scientific basis or mathematics to back his claims.

This probably why he is an engineer (using science) rather than a scientist (advancing science).

No it is a theory Matt. It is not an idea but a perfectly valid hypothesis. The only way to evidence it is to direct funs specifically to research this area. Considering the other theories that get grants why not this? On what basis is it not conceivable because it would seem to aptly fit what we can observe in nature so why not the cosmos as a whole.

I believe it is the electricity that gives the universe the propulsion that it needs to exist. It would also give reasonable explanation to the nature of cycles as everything is part of a giant circuit. Having no background in science I should probably pipedown then again I have respect for guys like Veliskovsky despite his humiliation by academia. In two hundred years the situation should be resolved either way and we can all sleep easy. In the meantime might be worth observing climate changes on the planets of the solar system. Both Jupiter and Saturn have undergone visible changes recently, what would you or the established view suggest is causing this? What is the catalyst for this change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.