Thunderbolts Forum

'13-04-08, 19:57 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Thornhill wrote: The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the center of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. [...] The atomic and molecular dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than Eddington's simple gravitational sorting allows. It leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. I disagree with this. If all of the electrons are still bound to atoms, and all you're getting is atomic dipoles, these fields don't superimpose to generate a radial field. Rather, all of the lines of force from one dipole will close on the next dipole. In other words, it will be the equivalent of this (where p = positive and n = negative): p - n - p - n - p - n. There is no net field in this configuration. Perhaps he's thinking of magnetic dipoles, which superimpose to generate macroscopic fields from microscopic forces. But this isn't true of electric dipoles.
'13-04-08, 22:45 Lloyd	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Charles, I think Thornhill discussed this a number of times, so there may be something that explains his view better. I think his idea was that the core atomic nuclei would first align facing toward the center, while the electrons tend to face the opposite way toward the surface. The dipole is just the arrangement of most electrons at the outer pole of the atom and the nucleus at the inner pole. Think of an inner sphere of atomic nuclei and a layer of electrons over that. Then another spherical layer of nuclei sit on top of the inner sphere with their electron layer just above. The electrons tend to get squeezed out, moving from one layer to another toward the surface. Thornhill actually described electric currents forming. I don't understand electric and magnetic fields well, so discussions of those don't usually translate well for me.
'13-04-09, 12:39 mague	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Lloyd wrote: 6 Models to Compare S: Standard Model: Nebular - Gravity - Nuclear Fusion E: EU Model: Electric Plasma - Compressive Ionization - Anode - Electric Current K: KB Cathode Model: Kristian Birkeland's Hollow Terella - Cathode - Electromagnet C: CC Cathode Model: Charlels' Nebular - Compressive Ionization - Cathode Sun B: BC Cathode Model: Brant's Electric Plasma - Aether - Iron Antenna - Cathode Sun M: MM Cathode Model: Michael's Supernova - Neutronium Core - Iron - Cathode Sun SOR: Anode-Cathode sun on rails Take the right hand rule and replace the hand with a sun. There is no Z-pinch, only sufficient matter to allow induction which creates the visual illusion of a pinch. Hence the heliosphere is an independant, self sustaining electric circuit where the suns core is anode and cathode. Its "riding" the current within the birkeland tunnel. Taking the motion of the electrons as base the rails have an anodic origin. Flows are magic. On their equator their values change. A magnet changes there from N to S, currency changes from anode to cathode. At ist peak its always neutral resp. no-thing. The heliosphere equator is close to the birkeland tunnels wall and the neutral ring isolates it from the cathodical nature of the outer current. I guess if this isolation breaks we see a super nova.
'13-04-10, 12:24 D_Archer	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun mague wrote: E: EU Model: Electric Plasma - Compressive Ionization - Anode - Electric Current I have never read EU literature mentioning "compressive ionization" , so this should be changed if you want to compare anything. Thanks Lloyd and Charles for the explanations for "compressive ionization" but it still does not make any sense as a mechanism in a star, it is more a description of self taught idea about how the matter in the sun ionizes based on old gravitic pressure assumptions, it is old theory and not part of the electric universe. The matter that forms the sun is already ionized before the sun forms, if anything, any accretion would de-ionize matter, as happened on earth, where the only non-plasma is the crust. The mechanism that keeps the matter ionized can not be based on the force of gravity. As an alternative explanation, i would says that the incoming energy (E/M, charge) keeps the plasma ionized. I think also that is what Wal was explaining, the electric force works against gravity*, that is also why the sun is so round and not a spheroid. Kind regards, Daniel *Miles Mathis his charge model applies
'13-04-10, 15:46 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Daniel, You're welcome to challenge how mass is estimated, which would call into question how much gravity is present. Just remember that we put a man on the Moon, so somehow we got the Newtonian mechanics close enough to travel quite a long ways within the solar system without too many surprises. I'm satisfied that the gravitational anomalies are relatively slight, and that our estimates of masses, at least within our own solar system, are relatively accurate. If so, the pressure inside the Sun developed by the force of gravity is deterministic, and is just as accurate as the mass estimate. If you refuse to take that into account, you'll end up just as wrong as the mainstream. Everybody wants to point to deficiencies in the existing model, and then invent all new physics. For the mainstream, it's CDM, dark energy, black holes, etc. For the EU, it's Birkeland currents compressing matter into stars, and then pumping currents through them to light them up. This sort of all-or-nothing mentality favors nothing rather than all. In rigorous physics, all of the factors have to be identified, estimated, and added up. Anything left over is an anomaly, and then you go looking for other factors to account for it. In the end, everything is the sum of all forces acting on it, and this is how accurate theories are developed. So I acknowledge gravity, and I'm considering the implications of the fact that enough pressure accumulates from it to overwhelm the electron binding energies, resulting in relatively stable charge separations. Solar power is then the release of that electrostatic potential. I followed the implications all of the way through, and it all checks out. I can prove definitively that the top layer of the Sun is positively charged, that there is a layer of negative charge below it, and that the negative charge is stronger. In that configuration, if a CME occurs, it's in the top layer, which is positive. We have rough estimates for the average mass of a CME. If all of it is positive, we know how much electrostatic potential was created by the expulsion, and this will pull electrons out of the Sun to neutralize the positive charge. Ohmic heating from that electron drift accounts for the 1026 watts of solar power, within an order of magnitude. It also accounts for the properties of granules, spicules, sunspots, and streamers. So I'm in the process of proving that the Sun is electric, and how. Still, I have no idea how to prove it to the EU community, because they have already locked down on the Juergens model, which is electric, and admitting that it is wrong, for them, would be forfeiting the entire Electric Sun hypothesis. Again, it's that all-or-nothing mentality, which is not rigorous physics, and which does not lead to accurate theories. If you want to be like that, then OK. I'll prove that the mainstream model is wrong (not hard to do), and I'll prove that the EU model is wrong (not much harder). But in the end, the only people who win in the game of science are the ones who insist that theories accurately account for the observations, and this necessarily requires that all forces be acknowledged and estimated. Cheers!
'13-04-12, 16:36 D_Archer	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun CharlesChandler wrote: You're welcome to challenge how mass is estimated ? did i do that. CharlesChandler wrote: But in the end, the only people who win in the game of science are the ones who insist that theories accurately account for the observations No, this is not how it works, this is precisely what has been wrong with science the past 100 years, adjusting their theories to observation, they thought they where winning yes, but in the end build a house of cards, destroyed multiples times already with new space age discoveries. In the end all theory will be overthrown. EU is generally called a paradigm shift, i would not count it as a theory of anything, but more a movement to include plasma and electricity into consideration of processes in the cosmos and within ourselves. In this regard, theory on anode sun or cathode sun is not EU vs anyting else, they are both EU, electric sun can never be forfeited, it is already proven as part of the EU paradigm. An all or nothing attitude is exactly rigorous physics, because only with rigor can one be certain about anything, dawdling with models becomes an exercise of attrition and does not lead to truth or new paradigms. Regards, Daniel
'13-04-12, 18:32 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun You're describing more of a belief system, like a religion, than a scientific theory. For some in the EU, that appears to be exactly what it is. It's a desire to believe that there's a new way of looking at things. For some people, which particular way doesn't really seem to matter — it just matters that the mainstream is wrong, and that a total rewrite is required. That's fine — believe what you want. But to grant it credibility by calling it science doesn't promote it to proof — it just changes the definition of science. So OK, to you, science is a paradigm that invalidates all that has gone before, and it doesn't have to be adjusted to accommodate new observations, because it isn't really a theory — it's just a new way of looking at things — and considering how a theory explains the phenomena doesn't get you closer to the truth. OK. That isn't my definition of science, but I'm not going to argue semantics here. Just let me know what words you use to describe what I'm doing. To you, it isn't science, but what is it? And don't just say that it's a waste of time. Whatever you call it, I can easily demonstrate that the method that I'm employing has, in the past, produced an enormous amount of very tangible value, in every walk of life. Don't get me wrong — beliefs are very important, and all scientific revolutions had to begin with a shift in world view, which didn't necessarily come with all of the details already worked out. So I'm not underestimating the power of the idea itself. I just want to know the proper term to use in our conversations for the go-ahead initiative. What if the idea is actually legitimate, and somebody wants to work out the details — what do you call that? Whatever it is, that's what I'm doing. The Universe is very definitely electric, and I'm in the process of proving significant aspects of it. You already believe, so you don't need to be convinced. I just don't understand why, if the details don't matter to you, you would bother questioning what I'm doing. Either it matters, or it doesn't. IMO, sometimes people adopt a paradigm, and without realizing it, they lock down on details, even while they're thinking that the details don't matter. Then somebody who challenges the details is challenging the entire paradigm, and that's when people put up a fight. But I've never seen anything good come from fights like that.
'13-04-12, 19:07 Lloyd	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Quasar Size Charles, on the other thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ I posted info showing that the .7 arcsec wide quasar in front of galaxy NGC 7319 is over 1,000 lightyears in diameter, if it's near that galaxy. Do you have any reason to disagree with that finding? If the quasar is that large, would that be a problem for your theory? And is there any reason to think that other quasars are not of a similar size?
'13-04-12, 21:44 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Hey Lloyd, "Back on the envelope" calculations show that light will travel approximately 17 light-years before I will have worked through all of the material that you have recently posted. (I'm still studying the data on stellar nursery filaments. Meanwhile, I'm also increasing the specificity of my contentions on heliospheric charges.) Cheers!
'13-04-22, 02:14 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Hi. I am a newbie here, but would like someone to describe the difference btween an Anode and a Cathode please. Use references if you could, to the original observations, made by Faraday. (I think it was Faraday). Describe what effect these two currents have on a conductor wound into a coil and the electrical connection configurations. Thanks.
'13-04-22, 18:48 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Daniel wrote: I am a newbie here, but would like someone to describe the difference btween an Anode and a Cathode please. The way we're using the terms here, an anode is positively charged, and emits +ions (or more probably, accepts electrons, but that isn't what the "anode model" states), while a cathode is negatively charged, and emits electrons.
'13-04-22, 23:59 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun You seem to be a well educated person Charles. I asked, if anyone here actually knew what Anodic current and Cathodic current was, and the distinction between them. Could you expand on the "model" you mentioned please?? Perhaps you could describe what happens when these two distinct forces are introduced into a coil?
'13-04-23, 01:18 CharlesChandler	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Daniel wrote: I asked, if anyone here actually knew what Anodic current and Cathodic current was, and the distinction between them. Could you expand on the "model" you mentioned please?? Perhaps you could describe what happens when these two distinct forces are introduced into a coil? The "anode model" states that the Sun is positively charged, emitting +ions, and that this +ion drift constitutes an arc discharge, which is responsible for the heat/light that we get from the Sun. For more info, see http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm. The "cathode model" pretty much just flips the polarity, and states that the Sun is emitting electrons instead of +ions. There are a couple flavors of this model, which differ in the details. The most verbose is mine, but you can also check out Michael Mozina's site. In a coil, you really don't get anodic/cathodic currents, as +ion/electron drifts, the way you do in plasma (or other fluids, like car batteries). Rather, in a solid conductor, the atomic nuclei are locked into a crystal lattice, and the electrons in the conduction band skip across the atoms. The direction of the electrons is from the cathode to the anode, which of course alternates in AC, but not in DC.
'13-04-23, 03:07 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun [/quote]In a coil, you really don't get anodic/cathodic currents, as +ion/electron drifts, the way you do in plasma (or other fluids, like car batteries). Rather, in a solid conductor, the atomic nuclei are locked into a crystal lattice, and the electrons in the conduction band skip across the atoms. The direction of the electrons is from the cathode to the anode, which of course alternates in AC, but not in DC.[/quote] If I were to suggest it, perhaps you would like to research the topic as I have tried to do, and not just accept the present dogma. The term "Anodic current" refers to Lord Kelvin's, (I think) observation of one form of energisation, namely Vitreous energy, which decomposed the Oxygen from the negatively polarised Cathode and Hydrogen from the positively charged Anode. The opposite energy, the Resinous form, delivering "Cathodic current" into the solution did the reverse, WITHOUT a change in polarisation of the electrodes as determined with a charged electroscope. This is where the terms "Cat - ion" and "An - ion" originated. The ions are either positively or negatively charged with a whole number energy. The force ehibited by this polarisation in an electric circuit is either North pole oriented magnetisation of a coil of wire with negative, Cathodic energy, or South pole orientation of the coil for Anodic energy, again, without reversing the terminals. These facts are the basis of electric energy, and were observed and tested from the 15th to the 18 and 19th century, by the scholars of the time, after which, it seems no - one remembers them and all their work, and worse, the "scholars" of our time seem to actively disregard these original observations, instead opting for some "virtual" explanation of positive electric energy which just leads to an increase in obscurity of the facts. If it were that someone would repeat these experiments, using the tools and knowledge now at our disposal, then we would all begin to see the potential of the universe as Tesla saw it. The positive charge is not "on" an electron....it is formed from a Positron. The two electric forms co - exist in all matter as dipolar magnetisation of the unit particle. It is only the orientation of the system which determines, by "convention" which electric field is utilised. Now, can someone redo the math?
'13-04-23, 04:21 Daniel	Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun Here is a linkt to Lord Kelvin's device...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper. and a link to a description of charge...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge...Of course, one has to keep in mind, the premise, and infer the difference, such as in the first paragraph, " An object will be negatively charged if it has an excess of electrons, and will otherwise be positively charged or uncharged"...... Now, keeping in mind that a conventional current is thought of as "a flow of electrons", and a decrease of outer electrons results in a net positive charge, and has a potential difference to ground, what is left on the atom? Less outer electrons on the shell, or more positrons? If the positrons were drawn away at the same time, then the object would not be charged, as in Resinous Galvanic current flow, where the material is degraded on the oxidative side of the chemical PH scale. If the object were left in a charged state by removing some electrons, it would be statically charged positive by the excess of positrons. NOT electrons, as they are not there any more in balance. It is just as possible, (though not as easy for galvanic energy due to the lack of electropositive elements in the chemical scale), to remove some positrons, (Vitreous current flow), leaving an object negatively charged, or to use positron flow to engage the galvanic potential of matter on the sulphation side of the PH scale. In Tesla and Volta's time, the first accumulators were made to store BOTH charges together, like a Leyden jar. These later became linked together to form batteries, which today only store a potential difference, and not energy as a charge seperation like they did back then, as Lead / Lead batteries. http://electrochem.cwru.edu/ed/dict.htm#e25 electrowinning is a good beginning. I beleive these basics of electricity would need to be applied to ANY theory or explanation of anything electric by a scientist. So, where a positive charge in the math is given a negative value today, due to the convention that energy is electron flow, it should have a positive value. Not backwards in time, as in a negative charge value returning to rest, but rather a forwards in time, opposite polarity particle of equal mass. This brings back the balance to the equations, removes the "quantum particles" and delivers the ability to revolve a magnetic field, to induce electric charge at any scale, whether it be within the corona - shpere of the sun, or at the inner cellular level of life. THIS is Telsa's true "Rotating Magnetic Field".