The Empty Sun. The Hollow Sun. The Electric Sun.

[I_Like_Science]

Heah, newbie. I'm quoting Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard. Who have you been quoting. Nobody. You don't even check out your material. Your first image posted was a fake. I started this thread, so with only six posts to your name, the troll you're smelling is yourself.

Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard are very likely charlatans, so quotes from them don't help your case. Seriously, I can't find a single third party verification of their qualifications at all.

So where are the answers to the questions I've been asking? Anybody else you can quote to get those?

And for the record, if my bringing up contradictory ideas and asking for explanations to other scientific ideas (that no-one has even TRIED to answer) makes me a troll, then yes, I'm a troll. But I prefer to think of it as being the voice of reason.

And sorry for the fake first pic, seriously. But what about the others?

[Aether]

Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard are very likely charlatans, so quotes from them don't help your case. Seriously, I can't find a single third party verification of their qualifications at all.

So where are the answers to the questions I've been asking? Anybody else you can quote to get those?

And for the record, if my bringing up contradictory ideas and asking for explanations to other scientific ideas (that no-one has even TRIED to answer) makes me a troll, then yes, I'm a troll. But I prefer to think of it as being the voice of reason.

And sorry for the fake first pic, seriously. But what about the others?

If you have questions for Eric Dollard, why don't you write him a letter?

[I_Like_Science]

If you have questions for Eric Dollard, why don't you write him a letter?

Because these are questions that he should naturally be trying to answer, as they fundamentally undermine his theory.

The burden of proof is on him with this one.

[Berg]

Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard are very likely charlatans

I support Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard.

So where are the answers to the questions I've been asking?

Why should I answer any of your questions?

I'm a troll.

We agree.

sorry for the fake first pic

You're just sorry you got caught.

[Aether]

Because these are questions that he should naturally be trying to answer, as they fundamentally undermine his theory.

The burden of proof is on him with this one.

So write him a letter and ask him about it and post his response back here...Most of Eric's written material is on Electrical Phenomena but he has wrote little about the sun, only small things here are there. You can go through his T-Rex account here and read all his recent material he put online or you can check out this website which has a large collection of his new and old material.

Eric Dollard | Gestalt Reality

[I_Like_Science]

I support Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard.

Good for you.

Why should I answer any of your questions?

To shut me up. I would honestly go away and never bother this forum ever again if you could actually answer my questions.

Moreover, my questions are extremely fundamental. You can't just go around throwing out theories without expecting people to question them, and when they do, "go away" isn't a scientific answer to them.

We agree.

Way to cherry pick my words. You kinda missed a point or two.

You're just sorry you got caught.

Frankly, I'm thinking your new-found bitterness is coming from being caught on spewing bs.

[I_Like_Science]

So write him a letter and ask him about it and post his response back here...Most of Eric's written material is on Electrical Phenomena but he has wrote little about the sun, only small things here are there. You can go through his T-Rex account here and read all his recent material he put online or you can check out this website which has a large collection of his new and old material.

Eric Dollard | Gestalt Reality

I like your style Aether. Maybe later I will look into his stuff, and I'll try to keep an open mind.

But his sun idea just doesn't hold water.

[Berg]

To shut me up.

Eventually, you'll shut yourself up.

I would honestly go away and never bother this forum ever again if you could actually answer my questions.

Who cares where you go?

You can't just go around throwing out theories without expecting people to question them

I'm just quoting a few people.

Frankly, I'm thinking your new-found bitterness is coming from being caught on spewing bs.

Accusing me of what you're doing? You're the one posting fake images and calling Peter Lindemann and Eric Dollard charlatans.

[I_Like_Science]

Blah

Oh quit being poopy-pants that the ideas you are quoting are bunk. If you want to have a scientific discussion, then let us discuss. But at this point you are just using the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

[Berg]

Oh quit being poopy-pants that the ideas you are quoting are bunk. If you want to have a scientific discussion, then let us discuss. But at this point you are just using the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

Your statements, misquote of me, newness to this forum, apparent immaturity, and your bogus claim of ad hominem only serve to confirm to me that you're a troll.

[I_Like_Science]

Your statements, misquote of me, newness to this forum, apparent immaturity, and your bogus claim of ad hominem only serve to confirm to me that you're a troll.

When did I misquote you? If anybodies been misquoted, its been me (a la the cherry picked "I'm a troll" statement).

When has newness meant wrongness? I'm sure many people would disagree with that, based on the fact that many beliefs held here are new to mainstream science, yet no-one here assumes they're wrong because of it.

When have I been immature? No really, when? Aside from laughing at the genuine troll, I feel I've been very mature about this, even admitting fault when a picture I posted turned out to be fake.

And most importantly, why is my claim of ad hominem untrue? You are attacking me, not what I am saying, are you not? If you don't believe that, then just re-read what I just quoted of yours, and note that not one thing has been said to answer the questions I've laid out. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

So once again, here are my questions, and my attempts at answering them by quoting genuine scientists (through wikipedia sometimes, but the links ARE at the bottom if'n you're curious).

Where did elements heavier than helium come from?
My thoughts are fusion.
Basic explanation of star fusion
Wikipedia on stars, worth reading all the way through

What prevents the star from collapsing?
Fusion energy pushing against gravity.
Explains a lot of what was above, but specifically answers that question in more plain english

What causes stars to explode?
Runaway fusion. See above links.

What causes sunspots?

First off, they aren't black/dark/transparent/holes, just far more dim.

Although they are at temperatures of roughly 3000–4500 K (2727–4227 °C), the contrast with the surrounding material at about 5,780 K (5,510 °C) leaves them clearly visible as dark spots, as the luminous intensity of a heated black body (closely approximated by the photosphere) is a function of temperature to the fourth power. If the sunspot were isolated from the surrounding photosphere it would be brighter than the Moon.

Second, as the wikipedia article explains...

They are caused by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection by an effect comparable to the eddy current brake, forming areas of reduced surface temperature. They usually appear as pairs, with each sunspot having the opposite magnetic pole than the other.

And as I listed in my first post, the article that started this whole parade lists honestly that our current models for the magnetic field of the sun need updating, not that the fusion model does!!

Can light be seen in 'free' space?
I've answered that with 3 real-life honest-to-god pictures taken in space. Further, there is a dual satellite program called STEREO I've already linked to that is working well outside the earths atmospheric range, and sending back pictures specifically of the sun. What gives with no explanation of that??

So now I've quoted some sources for you. Are you finally going to join the discussion? Or are you going to nit-pick my personal statements and avoid the theories I am extolling?

[Berg]

The Electric Sun



"For decades, solar physicists have believed that at the sun's core is a super heated thermonuclear reaction. This theory requires a massive transport of thermal energy to the Sun's surface through convection, but the result of this study(1) indicate a virtual absence of convection, just one percent of what a thermonuclear core would require."
Space News from the Electric Universe

Source: Electric Sun - Plasma cosmology "Electric Sun" Star model Vs thermonuclear reactor core model fails - YouTube

The Study: Anomalously weak solar convection
Shravan M. Hanasoge, Thomas L. Duvall, Jr. and Katepalli R. Sreenivasan

Below is an image of that study.



You can try to download the study, but I wouldn't try it. It crashed my computer after I attempted to download it.

Don't Attempt To Download: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...70109.full.pdf

You have been warned.

[Berg]

Misquoted.



Fake quote. I never said that.

[I_Like_Science]

Fake quote. I never said that.

I changed it because I didn't feel like repeating your vitriolic reply line by line. It was still true to the heart of what you said relative to the topic at hand, just without your baseless anger being added.

But past that, it's nice to see you at least trying to get back on subject, although neither you nor any source you've listed has even tried to answer my questions, STILL!!

As far as that article goes, not to be a jerk, but have you actually read it? Just stick to the abstract.

Convection in the solar interior is thought to comprise structures on a spectrum of scales. This conclusion emerges from phenomenological studies and numerical simulations, though neither covers the proper range of dynamical parameters of solar convection. Here, we analyze observations of the wavefield in the solar photosphere using techniques of time-distance helioseismology to image flows in the solar interior. We downsample and synthesize 900 billion wavefield observations to produce 3 billion cross-correlations, which we average and fit, measuring 5 million wave travel times. Using these travel times, we deduce the underlying flow systems and study their statistics to bound convective velocity magnitudes in the solar interior, as a function of depth and spherical-harmonic degree $\ell$. Within the wavenumber band $\ell<60$, Convective velocities are 20-100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates. This suggests the prevalence of a different paradigm of turbulence from that predicted by existing models, prompting the question: what mechanism transports the heat flux of a solar luminosity outwards? Advection is dominated by Coriolis forces for wavenumbers $\ell<60$, with Rossby numbers smaller than $\sim10^{-2}$ at $r/R_\odot=0.96$, suggesting that the Sun may be a much faster rotator than previously thought, and that large-scale convection may be quasi-geostrophic. The fact that iso-rotation contours in the Sun are not co-aligned with the axis of rotation suggests the presence of a latitudinal entropy gradient.

The bold parts are the conclusions of the scientists involved. It has NOTHING to do with the source of heat of the sun, merely its means of transport out of the sun. That's it. Nothing magical or mind blowing to see here.

The youtube video states...

The finds show that the convection is just one percent of what is required

NO! That's flat wrong! Just because the convection is less than what was thought does not mean that there are not other alternatives to getting the energy out. Just read the abstract. It suggests (the bold parts again) a few alternatives to what we thought was going on that would still make conventional sciences model of the interior of the sun very much plausible.

[Berg]

neither you nor any source you've listed has even tried to answer my questions

Do your own research.