0
   

Stars, and Global Warming

 
 
Reply Sat 3 Sep, 2005 01:01 pm
The basic reality of the situation is that global warming is probably real, but that human activity has less than nothing to do with it.

Present accepted scientific paradigms are a big part of the problem. The standard paradigm which says that stars are nuclear fusion engines would not allow for a star itself to go through hotter or colder cycles, or for anybody to use that as a plausible explanation for global warming.

There is another view of the situation and it goes like this: In real life, stars are electrical engines and not thermonuclear engines. A star is a focal point of a cosmic electrical discharge, and the fires and light you see on the surface of stars are the same kinds of fires and light you see with arc welders.

Our own sun in fact behaves entirely like an electrical phenomenon and not a thermonuclear one. A thermonuclear star would simply keep getting cooler from the center of the star outwards and on into space. The environment of the sun actually gets enormously hotter as you move from the surface into the photosphere and chromosphere.

As a star moves through regions of space with greater or lesser electrical potential difference, it goes through hotter and colder periods, thus the "mini ice age" of the 1600s and the warming period of today.

There are a number of sites on the net which deal with this sort of thing, e.g.

http://electric-cosmos.org/
http://holoscience.com/
http://kronia.com/
http://thunderbolts.info/
http://grazian-archive.com/Quantavol.htm


In particular, the idea of doing what Algor and others would have us do and go back to the age of horses and buggies on the wrongheaded assumption that man is responsible for "global warming" would be idiotic as well as counterproductive.

Or, as Rush Limbaugh puts it, if WW-II didn't cause the great man-made ecological disaster, it's not gonna happen.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 627 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 05:17 pm
Re: Stars, and Global Warming
gungasnake wrote:
There is another view of the situation and it goes like this: In real life, stars are electrical engines and not thermonuclear engines. A star is a focal point of a cosmic electrical discharge, and the fires and light you see on the surface of stars are the same kinds of fires and light you see with arc welders.


This theory's been around for a while, but it doesn't have much support. Too many aspects of it don't agree with the evidence.

Stars may have an electrical component, probably due in large part to the interaction of plasmas in their outer shells, but at their heart, they are nuclear furnaces without a doubt.

Have you started any good evolution bashing threads lately? If so I've missed them (been pretty busy running a company).

Take care,
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Stars, and Global Warming
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 01:39:09