The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined

submitted by Mnemonic from quantamagazine.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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 www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology/wiki/ (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.