There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state. Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger than the gravitational force.
Mainstream astrophysicists are continually “surprised” by new data sent back by space probes and orbiting telescopes. That ought to be a clue that something is wrong. New information always sends theoretical astrophysicists "back to the drawing board". In light of this, it is curious that they have such "cock-sure" attitudes about the infallibility of their present models. Those models seem to require major "patching up" every time a new space probe sends back data.
Astrophysicists and astronomers do not study experimental plasma dynamics in graduate school. They rarely take any courses in electrodynamic field theory, and thus they try to explain every new discovery via gravity, magnetism, and fluid dynamics which is all they understand. It is no wonder they cannot understand that 99% of all cosmic phenomena are due to plasma dynamics and not to gravity alone.
When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S.
Instead of wasting time in a futile battle trying to convince entrenched mainstream astronomers to seriously investigate the Electric/Plasma Universe ideas, a growing band of plasma scientists and engineers are simply bypassing them. A new electric plasma-based paradigm that does not find new discoveries to be “enigmatic and puzzling”, but rather to be predictable and consistent with an electrical point of view, is slowly but surely replacing the old paradigm wherein all electrical mechanisms are ignored.
If the Sun is essentially an electrical phenomenon, as seems to be the case, and it is also a fairly typical star, then all stars should exhibit properties that are consistent with the Electric Sun (ES) model. Do they? Let us extrapolate the ES model and compare it to what we have observed about stars.
In 1911 Ejnar Hertzspung constructed a plot of the absolute brightness vs. spectral class (temperature) of the stars whose distances we could then accurately measure by the parallax method. In 1913 Henry Norris Russell independently repeated this exercise. This plot is therefore named the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram, and is one of the first topics presented in introductory astronomy courses. It is clear that the HR diagram is a plot of actual observations – not something deduced from theory. So, any viable model of the workings of a star must be consistent with it. Is the Electric Sun (ES) model of how a star is powered consistent with the HR diagram? If it is not, then this would disprove the ES hypothesis.
In the HR diagram, as it is usually presented, the vertical axis is labeled with two scales: Absolute Magnitude (linear scale from about 18th magnitude at the bottom running up to perhaps -8 or so at the top), and Luminosity x Sun (log scale with 0.00001 at the bottom running up to 100,000 at the top). The horizontal axis also is labeled with several scales: Spectral Class - left to right: O and B [blue], A [white], F [yellow], G [yellow-orange], K [orange], M [red]).
Another horizontal axis scale - Absolute Temperature, also runs from left to right (from around 20,000 K down to 3000 K) corresponding to the (decreasing!) black-body temperature of those spectral classes. [As an engineer, I object to plotting increasing temperature from right to left! But such is the convention of astronomers. We will live with it.] A single given star defines a single point on this plot. A web search for the topic "Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram" will yield many different renderings of the HR plot.
Our Sun, being a fairly typical star, falls almost at the center of the diagram (at Luminosity = 1 and Absolute magnitude. = 5, Spectral Class G, and (photospheric) Temp. = 6,000K). The points on the plot seem to group nicely, generally forming a long, slightly diffuse line, that snakes from the upper left down toward the lower right. The line falls very steeply at the lower right end. There are two other less populated clouds of points: one group at the upper right and another one strung out across the bottom of the plot from a concentration in the lower left of the diagram.
In the ES model the important variable is: current density (Amps/sq m) at the star's photospheric surface. If a star's current density increases, the arc discharges on its surface (photospheric granules) get hotter, change color (away from red, toward blue-white), and get brighter. The absolute luminosity of a star, therefore, depends on two main variables: current density at its effective surface, and its size (the star's diameter).
Therefore, let us add a new scale to the horizontal axis of the HR diagram: 'Current Density at the Surface of each Star'. Consider moving from the lower right of the HR diagram toward the left. In so doing we are moving in the direction of increasing current density at the star's surface.
The first region on the lower right of the diagram is where the current density has such a low value that double layers (DLs) (photospheric granules) are not needed by the plasma surrounding the (anode) star. This is the region of the brown and red "dwarfs" and giant gas planets. Recent discoveries of extremely cool L - Type and T - Type dwarfs has required the original diagram to be extended to the lower right (See below). These 'stars' have extremely low absolute luminosity and temperature.
Notice that the surface temperature of the T - Type dwarfs is in the range of 1000 K or less! For comparison purposes recall that some points on the surface of Venus are in the range of 900 K. T - Type spectra have features due mostly to Methane - they resemble Jupiter's spectrum. The plasma that constitutes a star of this type is in its 'normal glow' range - or perhaps, even the 'dark current' range.
If all stars are indeed powered by a nuclear fusion reaction as is claimed, with the T dwarfs we must be in the 'cold fusion' range! Indeed, for fusion reactions to occur, standard theory requires that the temperature in a star's core must reach at least three million K. And because, in the accepted model, core temperature rises with gravitational pressure, the star must have a minimum mass of about 75 times the mass of the planet Jupiter, or about 7 percent of the mass of our sun. Many of the dwarfs do not meet these requirements. One mainstream astrophysicist, realizing this, has said that these dwarfs must be powered by 'gravitational collapse'.
The orbiting X-ray telescope, Chandra, recently discovered an X-ray flare being emitted by a brown dwarf (spectral class M9). This poses an additional problem for the advocates of the stellar fusion model. A star this cool should not be capable of X-ray flare production.
However, in the ES model, there are no minimum temperature or mass requirements because the star is inherently electrical to start with. In the ES model (if a brown/red dwarf is operating near the upper boundary of the dark current mode), a slight increase in the level of total current impinging on that star will move it into the normal glow mode. This transition will be accompanied by a rapid change in the voltage rise across the plasma of the star's atmosphere. Maxwell's equations tell us that such a change in voltage can produce a strong dynamic E-field and a strong dynamic magnetic field. If they are strong enough, dynamic EM fields can produce X-rays. Another similar phenomenon can occur if a star makes the transition from normal glow to arc mode.
As we progress leftward in the HR diagram, at first the plotted points move steeply upward; we enter the spectral M range where some arc tufting becomes necessary to sustain the star's electrical discharge.
As current density increases, tufts (plasma in the arc discharge mode) cover more and more of the surface of each star, and its luminosity increases sharply – plasma arcs are extremely bright compared to plasma in its normal glow mode. You can look directly at neon signs but not at electric arc welders. This accounts for the steepness of the HR curve in the M region – a slight increase in current density produces a large increase in luminosity. As we move upward and toward the left in the diagram, stars have more and more complete coats of photospheric arcs (tufting).
A case in point – NASA recently discovered a star, half of whose surface was "covered by a sunspot". A more informative way to say this would have been that "Half of this star's surface is covered by photospheric arcing." The present controversy about what the difference is between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf is baseless. They are members of a continuum – it is simply a matter of what the level of current density is at their surfaces. NASA's discovery supplies the missing link between the giant gas planets and the fully tufted stars. In fact, the term "proto-star" may be more descriptive than "giant gas planet".
Continuing toward the left, beyond the "knee of the curve", all these stars (K through B) are completely covered with tufts (have complete photospheres), their luminosity no longer grows as rapidly as before. But, the farther to the left we go (the higher the current density), the brighter the tufts become, and so the stars' luminosities do continue to increase. The situation is analogous to turning up the current in an electric arc welding machine. The increased brightness of the arcs accounts for the upward slope of the line toward the left. Mathematically we have the situation where the variable plotted on the horizontal axis (current density) is also one of the factors in the quantity plotted on the vertical axis (luminosity). The more significant this relationship is, the more closely the plot will approach a 45 degree straight line.
[Reminder: Our progression from right toward the left is not a description of one star evolving in time - we are just moving across the diagram from one static point (star) to another.]
That the stars do not all fall precisely on a line, but have some dispersion above and below the line, is due to their variation in size. The relatively straight portion of the HR diagram is called the 'main sequence'. This nomenclature gives a false impression, that stars move around 'sequentially' in the HR plot. The HR diagram is a static scatter plot, not a sequence.
When we get to the upper left end of the main sequence, what kind of stars are these? This is the region of O type, blue-white, high temperature (35,000+ K) stars. As we approach the far upper-left of the HR diagram (region of highest current density), the stars are under extreme electrical stress - too many Amps per sq. meter. Their absolute luminosities approach 100,000 times the Sun's. Even farther out to the upper left is the region of Wolf-Rayet stars. Extreme electrical stress can lead to such a star's splitting into parts, perhaps explosively. Such explosions are called novae. The splitting process is called fissioning. A characteristic of Wolf-Rayet stars is that they are losing mass rapidly.
Wal Thornhill once said:
"….. internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star."
If a sphere of fixed volume splits into two smaller (equal sized) spheres, the total surface area of the newly formed pair will be about 26% larger than the area of the original sphere. (If the split results in two unequally sized spheres, the increase in total area will be something less than 26%.) So, to reduce the current density it is experiencing, an electrically stressed, blue-white star may explosively fission into two or more stars. This provides an increase in total surface area and so results in a reduced level of current density on the (new) stars' surfaces. Each of two new (equal sized) stars will experience only 80% of the previous current density level and so both will jump to new locations farther to the lower-right in the HR diagram.
A possible example of two equal sized offspring may be the binary pair called Y Cygni. This is a pair of giant O or B type stars that orbit each other in a period of 2.99 days. Each star is some 5 million miles in diameter and 5000 times as luminous as our Sun - absolute magnitudes about -4.5. They are some 12 million miles apart (less than 2.5 times their diameters!). Their masses are 17.3 and 17.1 times the mass of our Sun.
If the members of the resulting binary pair turn out to be unequal in size, the larger one will probably have the larger current density - but still lower than the original value. (This assumes that the total charge and total driving current to the original star distributes itself onto the new stars proportionally to their masses.) In this case, the smaller member of the pair might have such a low value of current density as to drop it, abruptly, to "brown dwarf" or even "giant planet" status. That may be how giant gas planets get born (and are in close proximity to their parents).
There was an interesting statement made in this regard in the Jan. 1, 2001 issue of Science Now magazine (p.4). "Astronomers are scratching their heads over a strange new planetary system. A team discovered a huge gas ball -- apparently a failed star called a brown dwarf -- circling a star that holds another planet in its sway. But no one understands how something so massive as a brown dwarf could form so close to a normal star with a planetary companion." This was in an article called "An awkward trio disturbs astronomers" by G. Schilling.
The final distribution of mass and current density is sensitive to the mechanics of the splitting process. Such a process can only be violent - possibly resulting in a nova eruption. Some mass may be lost to the plasma cloud that later can appear as a planetary nebula or nova-remnant that surrounds the binary pair. If the charge on the original star was highly concentrated on or near its surface, and the fissioning process is similar to the peeling off of a onion's skin, then most of that original charge (and current) may end up on the offspring star that is constituted only of the skin of the original star. In this way the smaller, rather than the larger of the two members of the resulting binary pair, can be the hotter one. In any event, both stars will move to different positions in the HR diagram from where their parent was located.
Mainstream astronomy attempts to describe how stars 'age' (run out of nuclear fuel) and slowly migrate, taking hundreds of thousands of years to do so, tracing paths from one location on the HR diagram to another (the star going from one spectral class to another). The paths that stars 'must take' are, of course, completely predicated on the assumption that stars are fueled by the various stages of nuclear fusion of the lightest elements.
The ES model does not make that assumption. Humans have not been around long enough to actually observe any stars making the predicted slow migrations from one place on the HR diagram to another. So, at present, slow "stellar evolution" is another one of those complicated theoretical constructs that live brightly in the minds of astrophysicists without any observational evidence of their actual existence.
Examples That Falsify (Disprove) The Accepted Stellar Evolution Process
The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime. [CCD Astronomy, Summer 1996, p.40.]
"Around 1900 FG Sge was an inconspicuous hot star (T = 50,000 K) of magnitude 13. During the next 60 years it cooled to about 8000 K and brightened in the visual region to magnitude 9, as its radiation shifted from the far-UV to the visual region. Around 1970 a whole new bunch of spectral lines appeared due to elements such as Sr, Y, Zr, Ba and rare earths. .... The star cooled further in the 1970s and 80s and then all of a sudden in 1992 its magnitude dropped to 14. Further drops occurred from 1992 to 1996 with a very deep minimum near magnitude 16 in June of 1996." [Italics added]
So, after abruptly brightening by four magnitudes, it has dropped seven magnitudes. From the end of the last century FG Sagittae has moved across the HR diagram changing from a normal hot giant to a "late spectral type" (cool) star with marked changes in its surface chemical composition. Its present surface temperature is in the range of 4000K. This is not the kind of slow stellar 'evolution' mainstream astrophysicists preach.
And FG Sagittae is a binary pair!
The official wording was, "In 1995 FG Sge changed in brightness in a quite sporadic manner from V~10.5 to ~13.0 according to the data by Hungarian Astronomical Association-Variable Star Section. During the spectral observations on 9/10 and 10/11 August, FG Sge was very faint (HAA-VSS data: V~12.5-13.0, according to Variable Stars Observers' League of Japan: ~13.3) and therefore erroneously the visual companion 8'' apart from FG Sge was actually observed. This is probably the first high resolution spectrum of the companion ever obtained. The spectrum turned out to correspond to a quite normal giant with the spectral type around K0."
Is FG Sagittae an example of the binary fissioning (caused by electrical stress) that was described above? It seems to have all the basic characteristics: nova-like brightening followed by loss of luminosity and loss of temperature - moving to a different spectral type with marked changes in its surface chemical composition, discovery of a binary companion, and the entire systems lies within a nebulous nova remnant.
Two More Examples That Falsify the Accepted Stellar Evolution Process
Virginia Trimble, professor of physics at the University of California, Irvine, and visiting professor of astronomy at the University of Maryland, has said recently:
"We don't often see stars change their spectral types in a human lifetime. Thus, FG Sagittae, which brightened, cooled from about BO to K, and added lines of carbon, barium, and other elements to its spectrum in the century after 1890 was long seemingly unique. The standard interpretation has been that it experienced its very last flash of helium shell burning (the products are carbon and oxygen) and was about to become an R Coronea Borealis variable. These are carbon-rich stars that fade suddenly and unpredictably (which FG Sge started doing a couple of years ago) and that have hydrogen-depleted atmospheres (which FG Sge has just developed). In addition, the "galloping giant" is no longer alone. Examination of old images and spectrograms reveal that V 605 Aquilae, studied by Knut Lundmark in the 1920's was a similar sort of beast, though it is now very faint And the latest recruit is V 4334 Sagittarii, better known as Sakurai's object, for its 1994 discoverer. It, too, changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly, and is now hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich, and well on its way to becoming the century's third new R CrB star."
And Yet A Fourth Example - V838 Monocerotis
On October 2, 2002, NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) announced what is to them another "mystery star".
The official "explanation" reads, in part:
"V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the "expanding" nebula which now appears to surround it." [Ital and emphasis added.]
So now there are at least four prime examples of stars that do not evolve according to the accepted thermonuclear model of how stars are powered. These are stars that falsify the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. All of them act in a manner predicted by the Electric Star hypothesis.
In the Electric Star version of "stellar evolution" things can happen quickly. If the fusion model were correct, it would take hundreds of thousands of years for a star to change from one place in the HR diagram to another. It would not be observed within a "human lifetime". It didn't take FG Sagittae hundreds of thousands of years to "run down." The star V838 Monocerotis has moved half way across the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in a few months. Migrating across the HR diagram can happen very rapidly - and apparently does! How many such counter-examples does it take for astrophysicists to realize their stellar fusion theory has been falsified?
The diffuse group in the upper right hand corner of the HR diagram are stars which are cool (have low values of current density powering them) but are luminous and so are thought to be very large. They are highly luminous only because of their apparent size. And that size may well be due to having a huge corona rather than an inherently large diameter. At any rate, these are the 'red giants'. They are not necessarily any older than any other star. Notice that some are relatively quite cool - in the range of 1000 K. How do stars at this low a temperature maintain an internal fusion reaction? The simple answer is: They cannot! And they do not! And beneath an extended diffuse corona, they may be quite small stars.
Similarly, the group in the lower left hand corner have very low absolute luminosity but are extremely hot. The ES model simply explains them as being very small stars that are experiencing very high current densities. These are the "white dwarfs." Although most of them are concentrated in the lower-left corner of the diagram, the white dwarf group actually extends thinly across the bottom of the diagram. Thus the name white dwarf is a kind of misnomer. The shape of this thin grouping begins to drop off steeply at its (cooler) right end much as the main sequence does.
A professional astronomer has been quoted as saying:
"The observed white dwarfs are basically cooling embers. The nuclear fire of the stars burned out billions of years ago. The light emitted comes from the heat remaining from the earlier nuclear burning. By measuring the spectrum of the light, the brightness in various colors, the temperatures of the stars were determined. The two coolest of the white dwarfs studied, PSR J0034-0534 and PSR J1713+0747, are 3400 degrees Kelvin (5600 F), making them the coolest known white dwarfs. For comparison, the surface of the sun measures 5800 degrees Kelvin and the coolest previously known white dwarfs are 4000 degrees Kelvin."
But then, why are these relatively cool stars called "white"? One presumes it is only because they seem to be members of the grouping in the HR diagram that was originally given that name.
In a paper entitled “Stellar Spectra” (Aeon, Vol. V, No. 5, Jan. 2000, p. 37.) the late Earl R. Milton, Professor of Physics, University of Lethbridge reported on research he had performed on spectral line broadening in 1971 while at the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory in Vancouver, British Columbia. This work provides strong evidence in support of the Electric Sun model.
If a relatively cool gas comes between a wide-band light source and an observer, absorption lines will appear in the light's spectrum. These lines arise because of the absorption of (light) energy by the atoms of the gas. Electrons in those atoms jump from lower to higher discrete quantum energy states - they get the energy to make that jump from the light (having exactly the frequency that corresponds to that energy gap) that is passing through the gas. Each element in the gas produces its own signature pattern of lines. By recognizing the line patterns, we can identify the gas that is causing those lines. This method is used to discern what elements and molecules are present in the upper atmospheres of stars.
If, on the other hand, a sufficiently strong electric current is passed through a gas, the gas itself will emit a light spectrum in which only a few discrete colors (frequencies) appear. These are called emission lines. They are located precisely at those wavelengths (frequencies) at which that same gas produces absorption lines as described in the previous paragraph.
The spectra of most stars are heavily dominated by absorption lines. Spectra from the cooler stars (such as types G and K) are dominated by molecular bands arising from oxides (like ZrO and TiO) and from compounds of carbon like CH, CN, CO, and C2. Stars like the Sun (type G) show “metal” absorption lines. Astronomers call any element heavier than Helium a “metal”. In fact the Sun shows the presence of 68 of the known elements. The spectra of hot O and B type stars show few lines, and what lines they do have appear quite blurred or “broadened”. There are a few possible causes of this broadening.
If the absorbing gas is in a magnetic field, each line may split, symmetrically, into multiple, closely spaced lines. This is called the Zeeman effect - named for its discoverer, Pieter Zeeman (1865-1943).
If the gas is in an electric E-field, then lines split unsymmetrically - this is called the Stark effect named for Johannes Stark (1874-1957). These secondary lines are very closely spaced in frequency (wavelength) and so the effect is sometimes called line-broadening or blurring. A most important property is that the degree of Stark (electric field) broadening depends on the atomic mass of the affected gas. The lines of heavy elements are only slightly broadened whereas those of lighter atoms and ions are quite smeared out. This effect is not noted in Zeeman (magnetic field) broadening.
As we progress from right to left up the “main sequence” in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram – from the less electrically stressed stars toward those experiencing higher current input, we see an increasing broadening of spectral lines. In fact at the upper left end (O-type stars) there is so much blurring that we can distinguish very little structure in the line spectra. Is this caused by the increasing strengths of the E-fields in the stars' DLs as electrical stress increases? And, is increased E-field strength the only possible explanation for this line broadening? Milton states that two pieces of evidence strongly suggest that the answer is yes.
In highly stressed B-type stars:
1. A line at 4471.6 Angstroms is accompanied by a 'forbidden' partner at 4469.9 Angstroms. It is well known that this latter line only occurs when an electric field is present.
2. There is an extreme difference between the degree of broadening of the lines from hydrogen and helium (light elements) and those arising from sodium and ionized calcium (heavier elements). This effect is only noted in Stark effect broadening.
The usual mainstream explanation of line broadening is that the star must be rotating rapidly – light from the limb going away from us is red shifted, and light from the limb coming at us is blue shifted – the total effect being to smear out the line widths. BUT, if that were the true explanation, the lines from hydrogen should be no more smeared out than those from calcium. Both of these observations (1 and 2 above) strongly suggest that it is the presence of a strong electric field that is selectively broadening the spectral lines in B-type stars.
There is no simple explanation of these spectral effects via the (non-electrical) thermonuclear core model. So, let us consider to what degree this phenomenon – the existence of spectral absorption lines and their selective broadening – is consistent with the Electric Sun model.
In the Electric Sun model it is clear that the photosphere is the site of a strong plasma arc discharge. This produces the Sun's continuous visible light spectrum. Immediately above this in the Sun’s atmosphere there is the Double Layer (DL) in which an intense, outwardly directed electric field resides. It is within this strong E-field that many heavy elements are created by z-pinch fusion. Recall that the strong E-field dethermalizes the ions in that region and thus it is the (relatively) coolest layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Light that originates in the photosphere passes through the relatively cool, newly formed heavier elements in the DL. These heavier elements selectively absorb energy from the light's spectrum and thus the absorption lines are created. In fact they are created in exactly the place where the Sun's E-field is strongest. Thus we have the ideal situation for selective broadening of those lines due to the Stark effect.
In those instances wherein we see emission lines in a star’s spectrum we may speculate that, just as in the laboratory, the easiest way to generate them is by passing a strong electric current through a tenuous gas cloud. For example, type W (Wolf-Rayet) stars are under such intense electrical input that they are hotter even than type O stars. They are located to the left of the top of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. They typically show strong emission lines in their spectra. Since these stars experience stronger electrical currents than any other type star, there is ample probability that any tenuous coronal gases will be excited by such currents to produce emission lines.
At the other end of the HR diagram, type M (relatively cool) stars also sometimes exhibit spectral emission lines. Can we explain this via the Electric Sun model as well? Consider the star Betelgeuse – a type M red 'giant'. The average density of Betelgeuse is less than one ten thousandth of the density of the air we breathe. A star of such tenuous nature has often been called a 'red hot vacuum'. The outer surface of this tenuous sphere (the radius of which is larger than the orbit of Jupiter from the Sun) has been found to have three bright areas of photospheric tufting above which we would expect to find DLs wherein z-pinch fusion may occur. It is from this source that the absorption lines in the M-type spectra come. But, in addition, Betelgeuse is surrounded by a coronal plasma that extends out several hundred radii from the surface of the star. This corona is even less dense than the star itself. Thus we have a gigantic gas cloud through which (according to the Electric Star model) electric current is passing – an ideal situation for the production of spectral emission lines.
So, once again, in the case of stellar emission and absorption lines and their selective broadening, we observe a stellar phenomenon that is more consistent with the Electric Sun model than it is with the “fusion core” model (in which, of course, no mention is made of electric fields).
There are many ways to categorize stars. While observing the Andromeda Galaxy, M 31, astronomer Walter Baade discovered that he could distinguish between two general types of stars in that object. He called them Population I and Population II.
Population I stars are located in the arms of the galaxy. They are generally like our Sun; they are bright; are often blue giants, and are typically members of the "main sequence" of the HR diagram; there is usually lots of nebulosity, dust, and gas in their vicinity. Mainstream astronomers call them "young" stars.
Population II stars are not found in the arms, but rather, in the nucleus of the galaxy and in globular clusters that are situated around its periphery. These are less luminous, cooler, with fewer heavy elements; many are red and yellow giants; there is almost no dust and gas in their vicinity. Mainstream astronomers call these stars "old".
So we see that there is very roughly a lower-left half (Population I), upper-right half (Population II) partitioning of the HR diagram. Therefore, from the Electric Star point of view, we note that the stars in Population I are more heavily electrically stressed than those in Population II. In the next page we discuss the general shape of galaxies and then will be able to point out that the usual physical locations of these two star types in a typical galaxy are vastly different in electrical activity. The arms (where Population I type stars are usually located) are the focus of strong Birkeland current densities.
Up until recently no (Population I) O or B type stars were observed in globular clusters. It was thought that all stars in any given globular cluster were of a similar age (old - Population II). Therefore, it came as a big shock when it was discovered that there were some blue "stragglers" (stars that hadn't "aged properly") in certain clusters. It was said, in awe, that these stars were "rejuvenated stars that glow with the blue light of young stars"! "Stellar evolution" doesn't seem to be working too well in these cases.
Another example of "stellar evolution" that is difficult to explain via the H-He fusion reaction is that in recent years, the centers of elliptical galaxies (the other typical location of Population II stars) have been found to emit unexpectedly high amounts of blue and ultraviolet light. Elliptical galaxies (and the stars in them) are thought to be quite old. How, then, can there be so many "young" blue stars in them? One mainstream answer is that some dying old stars suddenly decide to burn the Helium they had been previously producing – or we hear (as always) the mantra that perhaps there were "collisions between stars".
Stellar densities in galactic nuclei are typically 50 - 60 stars per cubic light year. Each star occupies, say, 1/60 cubic LY. The cube root of 1/60 is approximately 0.25 - so, each star is 1/4 light year from its neighbor. (Remember Burnham's model: Two specks of dust 1/100 inch in diameter separated by a distance of 1/4 MILE.) What is the probability of their colliding?
From the ES point of view, any star can move quickly across the HR diagram if its electrical environment changes. Anyone who has seen the aurora's plasma curtains moving and folding in the polar sky realizes that Birkeland current filaments are not fixed, static, things. They move around. If the galactic Birkeland currents move around, it is likely they will move relative to some stars - either increasing or decreasing the current densities these stars experience. A blue star is just one that is experiencing the full brunt of a strong Birkeland current. "Blue stragglers" aren't stragglers at all. They are just blue.
When I was researching topics for this article, Wal Thornhill said to me,
"Have a look at variable stars, particularly bursters, where I think you will find the brightness curve is like that of lightning with a sudden rise time and exponential decay. Some stars are regular and others irregular. The irregular ones seem to average the power over the bursts. When they are more frequent, the energy is less per burst. If there is a long latency, the next burst is more powerful. It's the kind of thing you would expect from an electrical circuit when the trigger level is variable and the power input constant.
I think many variable stars are actually binaries with some kind of electrical interaction. Long period Miras (A type of variable star) may actually have an object orbiting within the shell of a red giant (as I have proposed for the proto-Saturnian system)"
Following Wal's suggestion, I looked at the recent Hubble image of Mira itself, the flagship star of that class of variable stars. Mira's image reveals a huge plasma emission on one side of the star. The official explanation includes the words, " Mira A is a red giant star undergoing dramatic pulsations, causing it to become more than 100 times brighter over the course of a year. …. Mira can extend to over 700 times the size of our Sun, and is only 400 light-years away. The …. photograph taken by the Hubble Space Telescope shows the true face of Mira. But what are we seeing? The unusual extended feature off the lower left of the star remains somewhat mysterious. Possible explanations include gravitational perturbation and/or heating from Mira's white dwarf star companion." [Italics added.]
Mira has a white dwarf companion, just as Wal suggested was likely. So, a much better possible explanation of its pulsating output is that an electrical discharge is taking place between Mira and its companion, much like a relaxation oscillator. It's not really "mysterious" at all.
There are many examples of unequally sized, closely spaced, binary pairs that are variable and emit frequent nova-like explosions. The list includes:
- SS Cygni - A yellow dwarf and a hot blue-white dwarf. Orbital period 6.5 hours! Separation distance 100.000 miles or less. Burnham asks, "Is SS Cygni ..... dying out after having been [a full scale nova] in the past?"
- U Geminorum - A B-type blue dwarf and a G-type dwarf. Orbital period 4.5 hours! Separation distance a few hundred thousand miles. In this case Burnham states, "Spectroscopic studies reveal the existence of a "rotating ring of gas" (plasma) around the blue star, and it appears that the explosive increase of light is due not only to the brightening of the star, but to a large increase of radiation from the cloud."
- Z Andromedae and R Aquarii - Both of these consist of a hot blue dwarf mated to a red giant.
- T Coronae and RS Ophiuchi - Both have recurrent nova-like eruptions and are close binary systems.
In 1998 NASA gave their description of what constitutes a "gamma ray burster". "October 13, 1998: Cosmic gamma-ray bursts have been called the greatest mystery of modern astronomy. They are powerful blasts of gamma- and X-radiation that come from all parts of the sky, but never from the same direction twice. Space satellites indicate that Earth is illuminated by 2 to 3 bursts every day. What are they? No one is certain. Until recently we didn't even know if they came from the neighborhood of our own solar system or perhaps from as far away as the edge of the universe. The first vital clues began to emerge in 1997 when astronomers detected an optical counterpart to a gamma-ray burst. In February 1997 the BeppoSAX X-ray astronomy satellite pinpointed the position of a burst in Orion to within a few arcminutes. That allowed astronomers to photograph the burst, and what they saw surprised them. They detected a rapidly fading star, probably the aftermath of a gigantic explosion, next to a faint amorphous blob believed to be a very distant galaxy." [Italics added.]
Doesn't this sound like fissioning again? An explosion, followed by a rapidly fading star, accompanied by some sort of companion! Might it be that the reason they "never [come] from the same direction twice" is that the creation of the binary pair has relieved the electrical stress (at least for a long enough time that we humans haven't yet seen a recurrence)? The February 2001 issue of Sky & Telescope magazine contains these words,
"Does every gamma-ray burst begin with the supernova explosion of a massive star? New observations from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Italian-Dutch BeppoSAX satellite suggest this is so. Some astronomers think it's still too early to draw firm conclusions, though they hail the new observations as revolutionary. In any case, a link between gamma-ray bursts and supernovae seems to be convincingly confirmed."
Although pulsars do not occupy a specific place in the HR diagram, it is worth noting that they, too, have characteristics that are most comfortably explained via the ES model. Pulsars are stars that have extremely short periods of variability in their production of EM radiation (both light and radio frequency emissions) . When they were first discovered it was thought that they rotated rapidly - like lighthouses. But when the observed rate of "rotation" got up to about once per second for certain pulsars, despite their having masses exceeding that of the sun, this official explanation became untenable. Instead, the concept of the "neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds.
But, one of the basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the 'zone of stability'. This is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. In fact, it seems that when we consider all the natural elements (and the heavy man made elements as well), there is a requirement that in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, a certain number of proton-electron pairs are required. The stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons, a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio SPONTANEOUSLY UNDERGO RADIOACTIVE TRANSFORMATIONS that tend to bring their compositions into or closer to this ratio.
Flying in the face of this observed fact, mainstream astrophysicists continue to postulate the existence of stars made up of solid material consisting only of neutrons, "neutronium". This is yet one more example of Fairie Dust entities fantasized by astrophysicists to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. The 'neutron star' is simply yet another fantasy conjured up, this time, in order to avoid confronting the idea that pulsar discharges are electrical phenomena. A nucleus or charge free atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. In fact, a web search on the word 'neutronium' will produce only references to a computer game – not to any real, scientific discussion or description. Lone neutrons decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes; atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously.
Perhaps some astronomers have begun to realize neutronium is embarrassingly impossible. In any event, a less easily falsifiable entity has now been proposed. Wal Thornhill has written about this latest mainstream explanation of pulsar emissions:
"The discovery now of an x-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 (J1808 for short), located in the constellation of Sagittarius, that flashes every 2.5 thousandths of a second (that is 24,000 RPM!) goes way beyond the red-line even for a neutron star. So another ad hoc requirement is added to the already long list - this pulsar must be composed of something even more dense than packed neutrons - strange matter! ...When not associated with protons in a nucleus, neutrons decay into protons and electrons in a few minutes. Atomic nuclei with too many neutrons are unstable. If it were possible to form a neutron star, why should it be stable?"
"Strange matter"! Yet another ad hoc fictional invention! They have been getting away with this kind of nonsense for decades. How ludicrous does it have to get before some responsible astronomer cries out that this Emperor Has No Clothes On?
Some pulsars oscillate with periods in the millisecond range. Their radio pulse characteristics are: the 'duty cycle' is typically 5% (i.e., the pulsar flashes like a strobe light - the duration of each output pulse is much shorter than the length of time between pulses); some individual pulses are quite variable in intensity; the polarization of the pulse implies the origin has a strong magnetic field; magnetic fields require electrical currents. These characteristics are consistent with an electrical arc (lightning) interaction between two closely spaced binary stars. Relaxation oscillators with characteristics like this have been known and used by electrical engineers for many years. Therefore, I was pleased when I saw the following announcement:
Hubble Space Telescope Observations Reveal Coolest and Oldest White Dwarf Stars in the Galaxy: "Using the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have detected five optical companion stars orbiting millisecond pulsars. Only two other such systems are known. Three of the companions are among the coolest and oldest white dwarf stars known." [Italics added]
It is becoming obvious that pulsars are electrical discharges between members of binary pairs.
The "Crab Nebula" (M1) is a cloud of gas (plasma) that is the remnant of a nova explosion seen by Chinese astronomers. Lying at the center of the nebula is a pulsar- a star called CM Tauri. The frequency of repetition of the pulsar's output is 30 pulses per second. The length of each flash, however, is approximately 1/1000 sec., one millisecond! The obvious question to ask next is: Is this star a binary pair? No companion is visible from even the largest earthbound telescopes. But, the Hubble orbiting telescope has recently found a companion, "a small knot of bright emission located only 1500 AU (1500 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun) from the pulsar.
This knot has gone undetected up until now because even at the best ground-based resolution it is lost in the glare of the adjacent pulsar. The knot and the pulsar line up with the direction of a jet of X-ray emission. A second discovery is that in the direction opposite the knot, the Crab pulsar is capped by a ring-like 'halo' of emission tipped at about 20 degrees to our line of sight. In this geometry the polar jet flows right through the center of the halo."
The shape of this pulsar centered object is exactly that of an electrical homopolar motor - generator.
Supernova Remnant G11.2-0.3
On August 6, 2000, and October 15, 2000, the orbiting X-ray telescope Chandra discovered a pulsar at the geometric center of the supernova remnant known as G11.2-0.3. This observation provides strong evidence that the pulsar was formed in the supernova of 386 AD, which was also witnessed by Chinese astronomers. The official description of the image included the words:
"The Chandra observations of G11.2-0.3 have also, for the first time, revealed the bizarre appearance of the pulsar wind nebula at the center of the supernova remnant. Its rough cigar-like shape is in contrast to the graceful arcs observed around the Crab and Vela pulsars. However, together with those pulsars, G11.2-0.3 demonstrates that such complicated structures are ubiquitous around young pulsars."
Upon examination, the image of the central star reveals that it is at the center of a 'cigar shaped' plasma discharge, not a 'bizarre wind nebula' (whatever that is). Although no binary companion has (yet) been found, the presence of the observed plasma discharge makes one suspect it is only a matter of time.
Each new discovery of a binary pair of stars, one of which is either a variable star or pulsar, at the center of a nova remnant, is one more piece of evidence that Juergens' electric star model and Thornhill's theory of the fissioning of those electric stars are both valid.
In the Electric Star hypothesis, there is no reason to attribute youth to one spectral type over another. We conclude that a star's location on the HR diagram only depends on its size and the electric current density it is presently experiencing. If, for whatever reason, the strength of that current density should change, then the star will change its position on the HR diagram - perhaps, like FG Sagittae, abruptly. Otherwise, no movement from one place to another on that plot is to be expected. And its age remains indeterminate regardless of its mass or spectral type. This is disquieting in the sense that we are now confronted by the knowledge that our own Sun's future is not as certain as is predicted by mainstream astronomy. We cannot know whether the Birkeland current presently powering our Sun will increase or decrease, nor how long it will be before it does so.
A fresh look at the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, unencumbered by the assumption that all stars must be internally powered by the thermonuclear fusion reaction, reveals an elegant correspondence between this plot and the Electric Star model proposed by Ralph Juergens and extended by Earl Milton. In fact the correspondence is better than it is with the standard thermonuclear model. The details in the shape of the HR diagram are exactly what the tufted electric star model predicts they should be. The observed actions of nova-like variable stars, pulsars, the anomalies in the line spectra of B-type stars, and the high frequency of occurrence of binary pairs of stars are all in concordance with Thornhill's Electrical Universe theory, his stellar fissioning concept, and the Electric Star model as well. Completely mysterious and unexplained from the thermonuclear model point of view is the 'impossible' evolutionary behavior of FG Sagittae and V838 Monocerotis. Yet these phenomena are perfectly understandable using the ES model. We eagerly await NASA's next 'mysterious discovery' to further strengthen the case for the Electric Star hypothesis.
Thanks to: http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com