Electrically Generated Supernova!

[Robbie_G]

Assuming the EU solar model is correct and the fusion occurring on the sun is taking place on it's surface;

Considering the facts of the electronegativity of the products of this process we can assume that in an ongoing way hydrogen and helium are moving towards the surface and providing new raw fuel for the process as the heavy elements produced are displacing them and moving towards the core.

The metals all having weak electron affinities and are also the heaviest and so accordingly seek to occupy the deepest regions of the suns core. The electro-negative elements tend to sink below the surface but not too far from it.

The metals lose their electrons to the CHNOPS elements and this eventually leads to a highly positive charged core. The annular regions of the CHNOPS elements tends to be electrically neutral with the additional electrons only balancing off the electro-negativity.

As hydrogen(highly electronegative) is depleted from the core and replaced with positively charged metals, the internal electrical pressures should be gradually increasing. So when the supernova occurs, is it simply the result of the release of a great deal of positive charge repulsion?

[D_Archer]

Supernovae are not the end of stars nor an explosion.

It is the beginning of star birth, matter is going IN, not out.

In EU the nebula is (small) part of a Birkeland current, where the pinch makes it glow (like the butterfly Nebula).

Regards,
Daniel

[willendure]

hydrogen(highly electronegative)

What do you mean by electronegative? Hydrogen atoms are electrically neutral. I don't follow what you are on about saying that fusion is an electronegative process.

[Rushthezeppelin]

hydrogen(highly electronegative)

What do you mean by electronegative? Hydrogen atoms are electrically neutral. I don't follow what you are on about saying that fusion is an electronegative process.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the hydrogen would be in plasma form which denotes that it has a non-zero charge.

[Robbie_G]

Zeppelin,

The hole point is hydrogen even with an electron, as an atom behaves as if it had a positive charge! Without the electron this is only amplified and the functional positive charge is increased!

Electro negativity as a property has never been considered in this way before and I am saying it has implications beyond chemistry.

Essentially,, for example an oxygen atom with 8 protons and 8 electrons still behaves as if it was charge imbalanced as an atom. The only thing that will attract electrons like this is an opposite charge attraction. A highly electronegative atom with an equal number of protons and electrons is then sensibly described as an atom of positive charge. Donating two electrons to oxygen more or less satisfies this positive charge and the atom is approximately electrically neutral even though now it has 10 electrons and only 8 protons!

That's what I think anyway. It does have some serious implications in cosmology and appears to provide some simple and sensible answers where there were none!

~Robert

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Robert.

The hole point is hydrogen even with an electron, as an atom behaves as it had a positive charge!

Same as saying. even when atoms are neutral, they are positive.

And even though, according to this theory, neutral atoms behave positive, they coined this electro-negativity.

Do hydrogen atoms attract extra electrons, and eventually neutralize when they become H- or H--
and is that why it is called electro-negativity?

~Paul

[Robbie_G]

Paul,

Electronegativity with an atom like oxygen or fluorine means that even with balanced opposite charged particle numbers, the atoms are not electrically charge neutral as might be anticipated. In fact they are only charge neutral as atoms when they have a balance excess of electrons.

Given that the major products of stellar fusion are oxygen and the other chops elements, then you expect the universe to be increasing in electronegative elements.

The only thing that attracts negative charge like this is a positive charge. Therefore The chnops elements are positive charge. This creates an asymmetry that is only increasing in time as the stars age. The universe is therefor becoming more positively charged with time.

This may explain the increasing accelerating expansion that we have observed. It may also help describe an electrical model of galaxy spin that works without dark matter. It may also help explain the huge negative charge(60,000 volts) on the surface of the earth. Of the 3, the expanding universe requires the least sophisticated explanation.

~Robert

[Webbman]

Assuming the EU solar model is correct and the fusion occurring on the sun is taking place on it's surface;

Considering the facts of the electronegativity of the products of this process we can assume that in an ongoing way hydrogen and helium are moving towards the surface and providing new raw fuel for the process as the heavy elements produced are displacing them and moving towards the core.

The metals all having weak electron affinities and are also the heaviest and so accordingly seek to occupy the deepest regions of the suns core. The electro-negative elements tend to sink below the surface but not too far from it.

The metals lose their electrons to the CHNOPS elements and this eventually leads to a highly positive charged core. The annular regions of the CHNOPS elements tends to be electrically neutral with the additional electrons only balancing off the electro-negativity.

As hydrogen(highly electronegative) is depleted from the core and replaced with positively charged metals, the internal electrical pressures should be gradually increasing. So when the supernova occurs, is it simply the result of the release of a great deal of positive charge repulsion?

or it could simply expel the core. Its not like there no iron cores lying around the solar system. I would also imagine that the sun will generate all naturally occurring elements through the fusion process through random interaction and gradient interaction as they separate by mass. Not every element naturally occurs so there must be some limiting factor on combinations. The magnetism of iron would probably cause the expulsion if it formed a bubble inside the sun and would drag everything in the bubble out with it when it was expelled.

if a star exploded common sense would dictate that it didn't run out of fuel, but was subject to to much power that couldn't be dissipated. You can explode anything this way if you add to much current to it. You cant explode anything by removing the power source. It doesn't make any sense.

[Robbie_G]

Webbman,

Most of the larger elements after iron is being produced are produced naturally in the energies obtained by the supernova itself.

The question I think is; Is the release of the stored electric positive potential what produces the shock required to initiate the supernova. I'm not even sure what could have encapsulated the tremendous pressures required before the event and what condition would trigger the release. Long term stability, then instantaneous instability?

What is clear though is that if the EU hypothesis of a surface fusion location is right, this alone will not account for the internal explosive primer that we observe in a supernova! A positive charge core might explain this.

I really don't know enough.

~Robert

[nick c]

What is clear though is that if the EU hypothesis of a surface fusion location is right, this alone will not account for the internal explosive primer that we observe in a supernova! A positive charge core might explain this.

Robbie,
Just to clarify, in the externally powered star model the composition of the stellar interior is largely irrelevant, although I believe that Thornhill does postulate a positive charged core. In the EU model a supernova is not the result of an internal explosion. But is rather the result of external electrical stress put upon an individual star within a galactic Birkeland current.
see:
Electric Supernova

In the Electric Universe view, a supernova is also an exploding star. But an electric star is a power-consuming “pinch”—a load—in a galactic circuit of Birkeland currents. The circuit drives the pinch, just as circuits in a house drive the electric lights.

Because the power comes from the circuit, the interior of an electric star could be composed in any number of ways. It could be a “balloon” of thin (or dense) plasma with constant density throughout. (The oscillations of the Sun’s surface are consistent with this model.) It could contain a solid body acting as an electrode for the “anode tufting” that makes up the visible surface, or photosphere.

Because the power comes from the circuit, the radiation and “wind” of an electric star are the effects of the arc discharges that make up the corona, chromosphere and photosphere. Fluctuations in these discharges generate “double layers” (DLs), which can become unstable and explode into flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs).

One characteristic of an exploding DL is that the energy of the entire circuit, not just the energy contained locally in the DL, can flow into the explosion. The energy increase accelerates the expansion of the DL and the particles composing it. This acceleration persists out to many stellar diameters from the visible surface of the star. At the same time, the radiation from the DL climbs into the ultraviolet or x-ray—or even gamma-ray—range, giving off a burst of high-energy “light” that has a time distribution like that of lightning: a sudden onset and exponential decline.

[Robbie_G]

Nick,

I am suggesting an internal circuit not dependant upon external circuits where there seems to be little evidence for.

An internal circuit and a system that through process creates electrical asymmetry and charge concentration in independence of external energy supplied to it. Remember the sun appears to be, by far a net expeller of energy and not a consumer of energy of any significance.

If you are going to suggest the energy driving the sun is from the outside, then what is the nature and source of this outside energy? It doesn't provide insight but instead introduces more convoluted complexity by attaching causes that simply do not exist?

If electrical energy large enough was traveling to the sun to produce the behaviour of the sun, don't you think we would be able to observe these currents which themselves would have to be luminous plasma?

~Robert

[GaryN]

If you are going to suggest the energy driving the sun is from the outside, then what is the nature and source of this outside energy? It doesn't provide insight but instead introduces more convoluted complexity by attaching causes that simply do not exist?

If electrical energy large enough was traveling to the sun to produce the behaviour of the sun, don't you think we would be able to observe these currents which themselves would have to be luminous plasma?

If the Sun is formed along a flux tube then the energy is a longitudinal magnetic field and is not a luminous plasma, and is not remotely detectable. Likely the pinch is just a much larger version of those observed in the solar coronal flux tubes:
Discovery of the Sausage-Pinch Instability in Solar Corona
http://www.uksolphys.org/uksp-nugget/34 ... ar-corona/
The Sun may be just an ongoing flare, it has the energy contained in a cosmic scale flux tube to keep it going, whereas the coronal flux tube is depleted quite quickly.

[Robbie_G]

GaryN,

The article you refer to is describing small surface phenomena on the sun made visible by luminous plasma.You seem to be confusing cause and effect, or the primary phenomena with the secondary.

I think you are imagining a much greater scale than the article and conditions warrant. The mentioned phenomena is a product of the sun, not a factor in it's creation.

You are also inferring a large scale perpetual motion apparatus by not suggesting a source for the energy transfer to the sun. At least if you claimed the energy was coming from the big bang we could trace the route!

~Robert

[jacmac]

Robbie_g says:

You are also inferring a large scale perpetual motion apparatus by not suggesting a source for the energy transfer to the sun. At least if you claimed the energy was coming from the big bang we could trace the route!

And why would we care to trace the route back to a non existent "big bang" perpetual motion machine. That is your mistake, not the Eu"s
JACK

[hawaiiguy]

Fascinating thread, about all I can input is the "wait and see" what Safire Project phase II brings forth in the data/energy columns. I think many an amazing and head scratching observations are going to come from this phase two experiment. I am truly excited based on the initial readings and observations from the first phase, I don't think anyone could have guessed at the energies released from such a minute voltage source.
Any update from Monty and Co on where phase II is at?