Positive Charge Galaxies

[Robbie_G]

By synthesizing positive charge elements(electronegative), the stars are all progressively exceeding a positive charge balance themselves.

If this is so the most positive charge in a galaxy is the spherical core where the highest density of stars exist. There is also evidence that the black holes at the centre maintain charge an artifact of the charge of the stars that have proceeded beyond the horizon. This, if true would attach a permanence to the charge of the galactic core with all stars being positively charged before being consumed.
The bottom line is stars are positive charged and anything that stars form is going to be positive charge...including the galaxy and the universe as a totality.

This may also explain the electric model of galaxy rotation without using dark matter!

Galactic Charge https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.3096


Charged Black Holes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner–Nordström_metric

[Zyxzevn]

All galaxies have halos.
I think these might be negative charge (electrons).

These free electrons can contribute to redshift of light.

[Robbie_G]

Zyxzevn,

Maybe so. I wonder at such things myself.

If what I am thinking is true then a galaxy is electron deficient and the process of stellar fusion is only increasing the magnitude of this deficiency over time. Is there a charge gradient across a galaxy that is proportional to the concentration of stars?...there should be and the greatest positive charge at the core.

With such a charge gradient being positive charge overall, is it going to produce the attraction necessary to hold a galaxy together? ~the simple answer is not and the galaxy should be pushing itself apart electrically but it's not...So what else is going on?

~Robert

[comingfrom]

Firstly, what is positive? and what is negative?
I haven't found the definitive explanation yet.

Whatever positive and negative are,
I think galaxies are recycling both charges through their centers.

~Paul

[BeAChooser]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

[JHL]

Firstly, what is positive? and what is negative?
I haven't found the definitive explanation yet.

Great question. I think it was Ben Franklin who established positive as a surplus of electrons, but either he or a successor eventually came to realize that current flowed to positive, calling the classic electron surplus/deficit paradigm into question. Later theory postulated that current flow was actually the space between electrons, which, as I recall, could mean that electrons don't actually move.

Whatever polarity is, I suspect it's as mysterious as any other force, and perhaps like gravity, "electricity" is simply a placeholder describing the properties or manifestations of something we can't comprehend. You'll need an Eric Dollard to lend some real enlightenment as to polarity, especially as electrical properties factor: https://borderlandsciences.org/journal/ ... tance.html

[JHL]

More: http://www.austincc.edu/wkibbe/truth.htm

Many authors bemoan the fact that Ben Franklin labeled "resinous electricity" as negative, and "vitreous electricity" as positive. By choosing the polarities this way, Franklin forces us to say that electrons carry a charge of negative electricity. As a result, we must name the electric currents in metals as flows of NEGATIVE charge rather than positive charge.

Did Franklin make a mistake? ABSOLUTELY NOT. In fact it's a blessing, since these flows of negative charge aren't inherently confusing. Franklin's choice of polarity fortunately helps reveal the true source of confusion: common and widespread misconceptions about electrons and "electricity."

"Electricity" does not exist. The term "electricity" is a catch-all word with many meanings. Unfortunately these meanings are contradictory, and this leads to the unsettling fact that there is no single substance or energy called "electricity." When we say "quantity of electricity," we could be talking about quantities of charged particles.

But we could also be talking about quantity of energy, quantity of current, or potential, forces, fields, net charge, power, or even about electrical phenomena. All of these are found as separate dictionary definitions of the word "electricity."

But current is not power, particles are not fields, and charge is not energy. "Quantity of Electricity" is a meaningless concept because of the contradictory definitions of the word "electricity."

Much of this problem would vanish if we used the word "electricity" only to refer to a field of science or class of phenomena.

This is the way we use the words "physics" or "optics." Then, if we needed to get down to details, we would never say "electricity."

(I don't offer these things out of expertise, but out of curiosity. Undoubtedly many here know this material inside out already...)

[scowie]

I believe the objects at the centres of spiral galaxies are negatively charged, i.e. charged oppositely to the stars. I believe this is the case because they are made up of antimatter and could be best described as antimatter hypergiants. We have detected the signature of antimatter about the centre of the MIlky Way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJW-3YEs0x4

The mainstream belief that these are hyperdense objects comes from their rejection of EM forces in orbital mechanics. I reckon there is strong electrostatic attraction between Sagittarius A* and the stars that closely orbit it in addition to the gravitational attraction.