Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

Keep up the good work Leif,
This electric universe theory is right up there along side the Jedi force that binds all things in the universe together, well in terms of a scientific theory at least, people have their beliefs and if you believe in something…
All the best 🙂

Everything is relative to parameters. If I am walking on a planet I perceive it like a solid relative to my size (dimension), but if relative to the milky way it has smaller size (dimension) than a photon. If I could observe it with such metrics (para: side, meter: measure) I should consider it a moving charge.

Here is your strong force:
“Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons’ mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.[citation needed]
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color.[3] Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.”
So, we actually find the binding of quarks is due to charge, not some other mysterious force we term Strong Force. Another name for the electrical force. Call it Color Charge if you want, but by any name it is still electric charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force
Weak isospin (T3) is a property (quantum number) of all particles, which governs how particles interact in the weak interaction.[citation needed] Weak isospin is to the weak interaction what electric charge is to the electromagnetism, and what color charge is to strong interaction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isospin
“Observation of the light baryons (those made of up, down and strange quarks) lead us to believe that some of these particles are so similar in terms of their strong interactions that they can be treated as different states of the same particle. In the modern understanding of quantum chromodynamics, this is because up and down quarks are very similar in mass, and have the same strong interactions. Particles made of the same numbers of up and down quarks have similar masses and are grouped together. For examples, the particles known as the Delta baryons—baryons of spin 3⁄2 made of a mix of three up and down quarks—are grouped together because they all have nearly the same mass (approximately 1,232 MeV/c2), and interact in nearly the same way.
However, because the up and down quarks have different charges (2⁄3 e and −1⁄3 e respectively), the four Deltas also have different charges (Δ++ (uuu), Δ+ (uud), Δ0 (udd), Δ− (ddd)). These Deltas could be treated as the same particle and the difference in charge being due to the particle being in different states. Isospin was devised as a parallel to spin to associate an isospin projection (denoted I3) to each charged state. Since there were four Deltas, four projections were needed.”
You see, they throw out concepts they really do not understand. In the end as you can see all these things boil down to charge. The electric force. Yes, they try very hard to hide this fact, but every mathmatical formula they use to describe space time or the behavior of objects within space time was derived from electrodynamics.
Gravity is the only force they dont use the word charge in describing how it works, but then again they have no idea how gravity works or what causes it. But we do know that Einstein based his entire theory of space time on the electromagnetic force, hence his theory “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Today they like to use words that imply non-electrical events, but if you actually read the descriptions of all these forces you see that it all boils down to charge and the difference in charge between two objects. They no longer even know what their own theory was based upon because they have confused the issue over the years to suppress any mention of the electric force, the very thing that is the basis of their theory. Of course they are unable to take out the words charge in their scientific descriptions because charge is what makes the math work, but they don’t mind leaving it out when they try to tell you that earth seems to be the only place electricity occurrs, as if we live on a very special planet. Personally I believe physics works the same everywhere in the universe, not just here and the electrical force is everywhere.

@Steven: This issue makes us think, revisit, what the traditional knowledge teach us, and how those traditional “symbols” transmitted by tradition are not just representations but the actual description of how nature works. Its simplicity surprises us and defy us, showing us we are lost in an inextricable entanglement of words powered and sustained by self conceit: A real Babel tower.

Steven says:
July 11, 2012 at 7:11 am
The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color.[3] Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.”
So, we actually find the binding of quarks is due to charge, not some other mysterious force we term Strong Force. Another name for the electrical force. Call it Color Charge if you want, but by any name it is still electric charge.
You should have taken Anthony’s advice and learned some basic physics. The color charge and isospin have nothing to do with electric charge, that is way they have different names.
Can you please explain to me what this expanding space is made up of? If it is expanding it is moving, if it is moving it is made up of something similar to particles. SR forbids any particles from traveling faster than c.
Space is not made of particles. You are so fond of Wikipedia, so study this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

@pkatt
Leif says (and he is citing others, he did not make this up) “The galaxies are not rushing away from us through space. They are not moving through space at all, but are basically sitting still while space is stretching around them.”
Now imagine having to invent such a fairy tale to explain observations! If space is expanding, then the galaxies are going to expand with them and everything in it, which means everything would look the same, relatively speaking. The alternative is that gravity keeps space-time pulled in around the galaxies preventing nearby space from expanding. In order to overcome this obvious problem, the galaxies are supposed to be ‘not expanding’ while the space between them does. Think about this: if the distance between galaxies is literally increasing, and the speed of light through space is constant, then there must be some additional ‘space’ being inserted between one galaxy and the next.
But they want it both ways: the stretching of light waves is supposed to be taking place in a fixed ‘quantity of space’ that has been stretched ‘longer’. If I stretch a rubber band to be longer, the wave written on it with a pen stretches too. OK, that is the analogy of the stretched space. Introduce a new light wave into that stretched space. Does it have to travel through more total space than before? No. If the analogy is stretched rubber, there is the same amount of rubber as before, just deformed like stretched space-time. But the argument is made that both the space was and continues to stretch, and there there is also literally more space (distance) between the galaxies. Where did that space come from? I thought it was supposed to be the same amount of space ‘stretched’.
The key to popping this ‘inflation’ balloon is the speed of light. When space-time is curved around an object, light travels in a curve, as observed from outside. The speed is constant with reference to the space-time forming that curve. If space-time is compressed by the curve, light slows a little as observed from ‘outside’. If the curvature was expansive not compressive, light still passes through that amount of space time in the same number of clock ticks even though it has been stretched a bit.
Consider: If the distance between two galaxies is increased by inserting ‘more space time’ between them, then a photon would be unaffected. It would just have more distance to travel from one to the next. If space time was stretched, it would take no longer than before because the amount of space time to travel through remained constant as shown by light passing around a curve. In fact you can’t prove from within the universe if the entire thing is not bouncing in an out like an inflating and deflating balloon if space-time itself is being stretched and compressed. We would not notice.
The ‘out’ created by the Standard Modellers is to say that the galaxies are not expanding but space is. This is basically in support of two things: that there is no aether (which is the fundamental point that Einstein was trying to systematically, conclusively show) and that red-shift is caused by movement away from a Big Bang.
Things that will be inexplicable by the Standard Model include
– stars that are older then the big bang (already found when I was young: 15bn years)
– starlight from extremely distant galaxies where the sum of the light-years to get to us plus the age of the stars in that galaxy exceed the big bang’s supposed age (we are probably on the cusp of getting that now)
– conclusive proof that the age of the universe is less than 9 billion years instead of about 13
– a Hubble Constant of about 75 instead of >100 (causes a number of problems)
– The CMB does not reasonably match its expected distribution (already shown to be a problem after much ballyhoo that it was ‘about right’)
Leif’s notes that the convection depth is shallower that previously thought, something he supported. Well the paper above talks about the slow speed of that convection being the foundation of their statement that the observed magnetic field can’t be created by it. I don’t see how that supports any Standard Models of the Sun. The blistering speed at which one deduces the convection depth was over-estimated does not create magnetic fields either.

Lief: “You should have taken Anthony’s advice and learned some basic physics. The color charge and isospin have nothing to do with electric charge, that is way they have different names.”
Did you not read the definitions, shall we go back and highlight the word charge in all the definitions?
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. But you refused to do away with the outdated notion of Strong Force, even though that idea was based on the notion that they were funamental particles. Another error stacked upon another. “However, because the up and down quarks have different charges…” which is why you have different color charges. Now unless you are implying that charge really doesn’t mean charge, you are only contradicting yourself at every turn.
Your example uses the surface of a bollon as an explanation. The surface of a boloon is a material object capable of expansion, of movement. I know what wiki says, i know what SR says, but nowhere does any of these explanation tell me what space time is composed of that enables this stretching or expansion. Certainly it must be composed of something if it can affect light and cause red-shift, and cause galaxies to move with it at a speed greater than c. Yet in no explanation of space time is there any explanation of how this occurs????? It just magically happens without any substance. So somethings (matter) affect nothing (space time) by causing it to curve. Yet space time is composed of nothing which is somehow curved by somethings and then this nothing tells somethings how to move. This nothing is also expanding faster than c, but since it is composed of nothing that is ok, after all, nothing can travel faster than c. Does that about sum up the theory???