all 25 comments

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

It's super weird to me how the poles change every 11 years on the sun like a clock. And no one really has the faintest idea why.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

maybe because of global warming..........on the sun...not on earth....i dont think they recycle on the sun

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Investigate the electric universe theory. They're definitely on to something.

The existing gravitational model of the universe fails to account for most of the energy that's observed. Gravity cannot account for much of what is observed in space, so they conjured up a new source that has no basis in observable reality.

[–]cablack 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

if they called it the electric universe conjecture (or even a hypothesis), they would be taken more seriously. Because a lot of science (and mathematics) begins with a conjecture (a hunch), that then gets studied and becomes a hypothesis that then gets tested and becomes a theory that then gets proven and becomes a law.

If you start out by calling it a theory, scientists know you are not one.

Edit: Rebuttals are invited that stay in the top three tiers of the pyramid of debate.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


You're confused about what theories are, and how they are formed. A thorough understanding of a phenomena isn't required for a theory.

  • Evolution wasn't understood
  • Gravity isn't understood

The requirement for any theory is that it is testable.

If you start out by calling it a theory, scientists know you are not one

It is a theory. Your argument was conjecture.

Edit: It's also similar to plasma cosmology but holds that the plasma electric phenomena also works in between individual stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a theory that then gets proven and becomes a law.

No. Laws are emergent properties of models. Laws are always laws, but they're conditional on the theory. Theories don't become laws and are then immutable; Newton's Laws describe a theory that has been shown to not correctly predict reality, yet they're still called "laws".

Nothing in science is ever proven. If somebody tells you that "science proves" something, chances are that their evidence is flimsy at best and they're trying to create false authority to back up a position or idea that, deep down, they know is wrong.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah dark matter and dark energy do not make a lot of sense. However dark matter does seem to be able to be localized (there are pockets of space with high gravity with no corresponding mass). But dark energy... which they say the universe is 90% made of, is basically just a way to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe (things being red-shifted more the farther away they are), as far as I understand it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gravity makes most sense in the theory of a fluid universe. Even more if one imaginages the fluid as some kind of soup that gets constantly stirred with a (((invisible cooking spoon))).

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The poles are changing on Earth, as well.

They appear to be converging, and accelerating in their movement.

Their direction of movement continues, then that would converge near Indonesia.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I've read that the North pole on Earth is moving faster and faster too. And we're "overdue" for a pole flip on earth, it's been like 800k years without one and on average they last 200k years or something like that.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting, I've never seen a south pole one before. Thanks!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's the death clock.

[–]EndlessSunflowers 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is cool! The mysterious dip. "The dip just defies all logic." We have so much to learn! What a great time to be alive!

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In earths atmosphere, "dips" in certain frequencies are usually caused by absorption. So I wonder if there exists something in the corona that absorbs that exact frequency. A very tiny nuclear structure with only one resonant frequency it absorbs.

I love trying to solve mysteries like this.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The model of the sun that is used by the Astrophysicists is completely wrong.

On (section Sun) I list the 9 clear problems with the sun, and some corrections to it. The list is not extensive.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think that much of this is valid. The sun is created from condensed matter (hydrogen), which is the only physical way to produce the full spectrum we see.

Molecular lattices are necessary for full spectrum, and they don't exist in gaseous form.

Also, I don't think the big bang is legit. The GE telescope was receiving EM noise produced by hydrogen bonding (water) as a consequence of being located at sea level. The big bang experiment that "proves" the big bang was never reproduced.

I think that the electric universe model has significant merit. It also explains solar wind, the Corona, EM from gas clouds in space seemingly without a source of energy to radiate. The electric universe accounts for much of this.

Unfortunately,They some fringe theorists add some irrelevant numerology, but the physics is generally worth investigating.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I try to keep plasmacosmology (provable) science based.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your second "problem" there is based on the assumption that electric and magnetic phenomena are separate things. They're not; electromagnetism has been known about for a while.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Nasa separates it and calls it the magnetic sun, which is completely false. :(

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That sounds really silly of them; I hate it when people simplify stuff like that. (Remember when NASA described CO₂ as a "global thermostat" when talking about solar flares?)

Do you have a link to that NASA article? I can try to make sense of it for you, or alternatively just advise you to ignore it if it's that bad.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Here's a showerthought: What is the dip is there due to a form of life that we cannot yet conceive of absorbing the radiation to live and reproduce? They would not be physical beings as we know them.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

that we cannot yet conceive of

You're currently conceiving of them

They would not be physical beings as we know them.

If they're not physical, then they're unlike anything we've ever seen before ever at all in the entire universe, which I think is unlikely.

I prefer to believe that the universe is fundamentally understandable, because there's no benefit to the belief that it isn't.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is understandable. We're always learning more about it.

[–]roc 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it causies a dip or anything else that can be observed, it's physical.