Stellar Nucleosynthesis for an Electric Star

[dougettinger]

I am becoming more and more familiar with the concepts of the Electric Universe - many of which I can readily adopt.

How does the Electric Star such as our Sun or a larger star create the elements of the periodic table? What is happening within the interior of the Sun, if it is so much cooler than the photosphere and corona? What pressure and temperature gradients do the Electric Star enthusiasts anticipate for the Sun's interior? I expect that the entire cross-section is composed of highly conductive and magnetic plasma. How deep is hydrogen fusion taking place?

Regards,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[Metryq]

Greetings again, Doug,

Another answer from the peanut gallery, if I understand what I've been reading. Fusion of elements is happening at the "surface" of the Sun, not in the deep interior, as the gravity-driven mainstream model maintains. An electric star churns out small quantities of heavier elements through plasmoids. (See Dense Plasma Focus) In other words, fusion is a by-product of an electric star, not the main power source itself.

I have not read deeply on any of the EU models for electric stars, but I gather that the mainstream model does not work above iron (element 26). Also, supernovae, which are allegedly the source of that upper two-thirds of the periodic table, are not numerous enough. In fact, mainstream models cannot even generate a nova, let alone a supernova. (EU novas are something entirely different.)

[dougettinger]

Hello to Metryq and other forum members,

So my understanding about an Electric Star is that fusion occurs on the much hotter surface of the star. When plasmoids are created after ejection from the star's surface, even higher temperatures are produced that create the fusion of the heavier elements including those above iron. Is this process occurring throughout most of the life of the star? Are these plasmoids actually observed?

Other questions are about what is occurring within the deep interior of the star. Supposedly, hydrostatic pressures increase to produce very high temperatures toward the star's center. So what is really occurring to the matter inside a star's interior?

I was not aware that the higher elements did not have enough supernovae to be produced. Supposedly, in a younger, smaller universe many more massive short-lived stars produced supernovae to create these rarest of elements. What is wrong with this postulation?

Thanks, for the "focus fusion" reference; some lecturers such as Lerner are very enlightening.

Best regards,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[Metryq]

Supposedly, in a younger, smaller universe many more massive short-lived stars produced supernovae to create these rarest of elements.

The Electric Universe does not posit any beginning. The Big Bang starts with a literal miracle. I think the origin of the Big Bang was Hubble's observations showing increasing redshift with distance. Cosmologists ran that backwards as far as possible and came up with the kernel of the explosion. I suppose it seemed a sensible enough conclusion, but it was based on the assumption that redshift was due to the Doppler effect. Halton Arp threw a monkey wrench into that, so they burned him at the stake. (Well, not really, but the modern equivalent.)

Stars in the Electric Universe do not have predictable lifespans that cooperate neatly with mathematical theories. They can run up and down the H-R diagram as the currents feeding them vary. So our own Sun might cut loose tomorrow and destroy us all, fizzle out suddenly, or even last far longer than the Standard Model predicts. Stars might even live more lives than Lazarus Long.

As I've said before, the EU is a major paradigm shift. It works well with over a century of lab experiments, but does not afford much room for mainstream astronomy.

[dougettinger]

Hello Metryq and other forum members,

You are indeed suggesting a paradigm shift. Does EU adopt any parts of the stellar nucleosynthesis hypothesis which I believe to be quite elegant ?

And when time permits please address my questions about what happens within the interior of stars if all fusion occurs on the surface. Thank you.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[Sparky]

And when time permits please address my questions about what happens within the interior of stars if all fusion occurs on the surface.

Sorry, but I misplaced my crystal ball...

[dougettinger]

Hello to Sparky and other forum members,

Here are my questions about electric stars.

So my understanding about an Electric Star is that fusion occurs on the much hotter surface of the star. When plasmoids are created after ejection from the star's surface, even higher temperatures are produced that create the fusion of the heavier elements including those above iron. Is this process occurring throughout most of the life of the star? Are these plasmoids actually observed?

Other questions are about what is occurring within the deep interior of the star. Supposedly, hydrostatic pressures increase to produce very high temperatures toward the star's center. So what is really occurring to the matter inside a star's interior?

Best regards,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[Sparky]

Doug,, you ask questions that only speculations can answer. True, some speculations have more weight than others.

Plasmoids? I do not know if plasmoids habitate the outer surface of the sun. But speculate that those rising columns of plasma could harbour , at some point, a zpinch quite capable of heat and pressure to produce fusion.

We do not know what is beneath the visible surface.

[dougettinger]

Hello Sparky and other forum members,

Other questions are about what is occurring within the deep interior of the star. Supposedly, hydrostatic pressures increase to produce very high temperatures toward the star's center. So what is really occurring to the matter inside a star's interior? "

Thanks for suggesting that z-pinches of plasma may provide both the pressures and temperatures for fusing elements with higher atomic numbers. That speculation seems reasonable.

I still have this nagging question about what happens inside the center of stars. Due to the gravitational law, star's masses can be determined. Hence, a star must have this matter inside its corona envelop. This matter from normal physics is subjected to hydrostatic pressures which result in higher temperatures as the pressure increases. And, I believe nuclear physics shows us what happens when these pressures and temperatures are achieved. So what parts of these basic physical laws are the Electric Star scientists rejecting?

Best regards,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

[Sparky]

So what parts of these basic physical laws are the Electric Star scientists rejecting?

None..... ...Basically , they suggest that all physical laws be used to evaluate what is being observed.

What is below the sun's observable surface is pure speculation without much evidence.
We just don't know how the sun is put together.

[Metryq]

Due to the gravitational law, star's masses can be determined.

To supplement Sparky's comment about considering all physical laws, see the latest Thunderbolts video on YouTube. In "Threads of Evidence" Wal Thornhill briefly addresses the interaction of gravity and electrical forces (about 23 minutes in). Remember that paradigm shift—stop thinking in gravity-only terms.

As an example of the speculation-as-fact practiced by mainstream astronomers, consider the following passage from Donald Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY:

The extraordinary thing about pulsars is the almost unbelievably high frequency of their flashes of electromagnetic radiation (both light and radio frequency emissions). When they were first discovered, it was thought that they rotated rapidly—like lighthouses. But when the implied rate of rotation for some pulsars was announced to be about once every second, despite their having masses exceeding that of the Sun, this lighthouse explanation became untenable. It was proposed that only such a super-dense material as 'neutronium' could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds—so they must exist. A neutron star was spinning at the required rate.

Neutron stars are impossible. One of the well-known basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the so-called 'band 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 known elements (even the heavy man-made elements as well), there is a requirement that, in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, an almost equal 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 about 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio spontaneously undergo radioactive decay transformations that tend to bring their compositions closer to this ratio. Groups of neutrons are not stable by themselves.

We know from laboratory experiments that any lone neutron decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino in less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously. There is no such thing as neutronium. Therefore there can be no such entity as a neutron star. It is a fiction that flies in the face of all we know about elements and their atomic nuclei.

There are numerous flaws with the model for our own Sun: it is too perfectly spherical, it emits too few neutrinos (according to theory), the "spots" are dark when they should be bright, the corona is far hotter than the photosphere, etc. Computer models for stars more massive than the Sun cannot produce a nova, just a fizzle.

As you read "alternative" theories, keep in mind that much of what we are told by mainstream astronomers with great certainty may be little more than speculation hardened into dogma. We can't question everything in science and go back to basics on everything, but we can be guided to the problem areas where anomalies become increasingly pointed. If the consensus explanation sounds ad hoc, it may well be flawed.

[Sparky]

Here's a short video, showing that a star may turn inside out during a supernova.

http://youtu.be/SDTvCyR288o

[oz93666]

It seems we are very much in the dark on what's happening with the sun, and there seems to be no single EU theory.
There is no theoretical model which allows construction of atoms greater than iron on the sun, we have to go to supernovae , the fact we don't see many these days is accounted for by the theory that early on there were a great many which accounts for the (relative) abundance of atoms above iron we see now , but then the number of supernovae declined. Some EU people believe the only fusion occurs in the flares , that the power comes from the slow discharge of a +vely charged sun, which is 500KV above galactic space. Others believe the power comes from the energy of the forming pinch, and collapse, which is stored by charge separation in the sun and slowly released.
The standard theory of fussion power was in trouble since only one third of predicted neutrinos could be detected , but we are told this has been resolved and all's well.
Other quite sensible people actually believe the sun is hollow! Anything is on the table.

[Metryq]

Here's a short video, showing that a star may turn inside out during a supernova.

http://youtu.be/SDTvCyR288o

A YouTube video with an artist's rendering... well, I guess the science is settled. Thanks for setting me straight, Sparky. I feel like such a fool believing all this electric universe nonsense.

Cue Rod Serling stepping in to reveal that our whole universe is really a CPU in some higher universe, and the Sun merely one gate in the circuit.

[Sparky]

Here's a short video, showing that a star may turn inside out during a supernova.

http://youtu.be/SDTvCyR288o

A YouTube video with an artist's rendering... well, I guess the science is settled. Thanks for setting me straight, Sparky. I feel like such a fool believing all this electric universe nonsense.

Cue Rod Serling stepping in to reveal that our whole universe is really a CPU in some higher universe, and the Sun merely one gate in the circuit.

Don't get your shorts in a bunch..

Artist rendering of observed phenomenon, showing spectra of heavy elements vs lighter elements separation after a "supernova". Geesh~!

What do you expect? HD , in real time?!