Positively charged sun!

[Robbie_G]

There are a few underlying assumptions in cosmology that may or may not be true;

There is a numerical balance of positive and negative electrical charge elements
~ and because of this the universe as a whole has a net electric potential of zero!
~ the only possible way that electric potential can exist cosmologically is then in narrow
sections of it!

The neglected consideration is however that individual atoms with equal numbers of protons and electrons are for cosmology purposes assumed to be net charge balanced when science itself starting with Pauling knows that it isn't.

In the process of stellar fusion 4 helium atoms are fused to create oxygen for example. Helium has a Pauling electronegativity value of zero, but the formed oxygen has a Pauling electronegativity value of 3.44.
In spite of having an equal number of opposite charge elements, oxygen behaves as if it is still positively charged and attracts more than it's share of electrons and this results in charge separation between atoms of different types.

So in a star where the largest product of stellar fusion is oxygen and other CHNOPS elements, shouldn't stars be themselves objects of net positive charge resulting from an increasing aggregate in electronegativity?

[oz93666]

The values you give for He and O are correct for elements in their most 'common and stable oxidation states'.

Electronegativity cannot be directly measured and must be calculated from other atomic or molecular properties.

Linus Pauling described electronegativity as “the power of an atom in a molecule to attract electrons to itself.” 1. Basically, the electronegativity of an atom is a relative value of that atom's ability to attract election density toward itself when it bonds to another atom.

Two quotes above are from a search, high lights added by me .....It appears this phenomena only occurs in molecules .... bonded atoms , and is not too 'real' as it can't be measured.

I've a feeling He fusing to O will not result in a charge .

It's generally thought (in EU) that stars are not powered by fusion , just a very little going on in the flares.

[freemanjack]

Might I suggest that all planetary/solar objects are anodes, interstellar space, being saturated with photons which are more or less 'free electrons' (if I remotely grasp Feynmans vector diagram's), is the cathode. If this is the case then we have deep space as a constant supply of electrons which would be vortexed into the solar and planetary anodes driving positively ionised elements away from any gaseous surface, whilst potentially bringing enough charge density to bear to even be the source of the atoms that make up those same solar/planetary objects, this to my thinking, more elegantly fits the differing compositions of planets etc far more reasonably than the 'collapsing dust cloud' model. It is a plasma universe consisting largely of nothing more than electrical charges coalescing to form suns and planets.

[oz93666]

Might I suggest that all planetary/solar objects are anodes, interstellar space, being saturated with photons which are more or less 'free electrons' (if I remotely grasp Feynmans vector diagram's), is the cathode. If this is the case then we have deep space as a constant supply of electrons which would be vortexed into the solar and planetary anodes driving positively ionised elements away from any gaseous surface, whilst potentially bringing enough charge density to bear to even be the source of the atoms that make up those same solar/planetary objects, this to my thinking, more elegantly fits the differing compositions of planets etc far more reasonably than the 'collapsing dust cloud' model. It is a plasma universe consisting largely of nothing more than electrical charges coalescing to form suns and planets.

Generally I agree, but if all planetary/solar objects started as anodes they would receive charge from interstellar space and change their charge , surely things are driven by the changing interstellar winds, sometimes +ve sometimes -ve, and bodies are constantly changing charge, some maybe +ve others -ve , relative to themselves and the prevailing cosmic wind.

[comingfrom]

Photons are light, which are many orders of magnitude smaller than free electrons.

~Paul

[freemanjack]

Photons are light, which are many orders of magnitude smaller than free electrons.

~Paul

Might I suggest your assertive tone is incongruous with the very essence of scientific inquiry? Perhaps 'Photons are light' is your first broad assumption which may have been better put; some experiments suggest photons are the medium of transmission of light. As to magnitude orders, as far as I can tell, electrons are conceived of as 'point particles' with an R = 0 and photons a wave which has no 'real' dimension to describe as greater or smaller than anything. A wave is not an object it is the perturbations between two media or a pressure front within the body of a medium and as such can only have wavelength and amplitude. Or at least that is the best broad conception I have been able to arrive at given the mass of confusing, incomplete and downright misleading data on this subject.
Great debate tho, really inspiring, thank you all

[freemanjack]

Might I suggest that all planetary/solar objects are anodes, interstellar space, being saturated with photons which are more or less 'free electrons' (if I remotely grasp Feynmans vector diagram's), is the cathode. If this is the case then we have deep space as a constant supply of electrons which would be vortexed into the solar and planetary anodes driving positively ionised elements away from any gaseous surface, whilst potentially bringing enough charge density to bear to even be the source of the atoms that make up those same solar/planetary objects, this to my thinking, more elegantly fits the differing compositions of planets etc far more reasonably than the 'collapsing dust cloud' model. It is a plasma universe consisting largely of nothing more than electrical charges coalescing to form suns and planets.

Generally I agree, but if all planetary/solar objects started as anodes they would receive charge from interstellar space and change their charge , surely things are driven by the changing interstellar winds, sometimes +ve sometimes -ve, and bodies are constantly changing charge, some maybe +ve others -ve , relative to themselves and the prevailing cosmic wind.

The problem as I see it is a fundamental failure to reveal the nature and source of charge in the first place, then the airbrushing out of the aether from the subject and finally the whole subject of electron flow and standing charges. I have been forced to conceptualise atoms as swirling vortexes of numerical, algorithmic coherence, with electrons being the outward, centrifugal component and protons the inward centripetal one and neutrons as some kind of tidal intermediary but apart from finding some agreement from David Bohm's later work, I feel like a blind man trying to describe an elephant, from one angle its a snake, from another a tree, from a third a leather clad barrel but never an elephant!

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Jack.

Might I suggest your assertive tone is incongruous with the very essence of scientific inquiry?

You might.
Might I apologize, for I don't mean to sound assertive.

And thank you, for pointing out my tone.
I really do hope for corrections.

Perhaps 'Photons are light' is your first broad assumption which may have been better put; some experiments suggest photons are the medium of transmission of light. As to magnitude orders, as far as I can tell, electrons are conceived of as 'point particles' with an R = 0 and photons a wave which has no 'real' dimension to describe as greater or smaller than anything. A wave is not an object it is the perturbations between two media or a pressure front within the body of a medium and as such can only have wavelength and amplitude. Or at least that is the best broad conception I have been able to arrive at given the mass of confusing, incomplete and downright misleading data on this subject.

So you made me google and check.
And I find I had presumed a proportionally smaller radius based upon my reading their masses.

And the fact has boggled my mind.
I read that Electrons have ~1/2000th the mass of a proton,
but only now learn they are presumed to not have a radius.
How can a mass not have a radius?

I did know that photons are not given a radius.
Still, it is hard for me to conceptualize them without mass and radius too.
I tend to think the mass and radius must be too small for us to measure,
but the energy they have is easier for us to detect.

Either something is there, or there isn't anything there.
Because we detect it (photon or electron), some "thing" is there.
And maybe the wave properties are from its spins.
I can easily visualize an end over end spin would give it a wave motion.

But thank you for showing me that.
I continue to ponder upon the confusion
~Paul

[jacmac]

Freemanjack said:

Might I suggest that all planetary/solar objects are anodes, interstellar space, being saturated with photons which are more or less 'free electrons

I would like to assert that electrons have what is called a negative CHARGE.
Photons, be they light or the carrier of light, or a particle or a wave, or some as yet unknown combination of any of these properties, do not have a CHARGE.
Photons are not electrons.
Jack

[comingfrom]

Thank you, JacMac.

I would like to assert that electrons have what is called a negative CHARGE.
Photons, be they light or the carrier of light, or a particle or a wave, or some as yet unknown combination of any of these properties, do not have a CHARGE.
Photons are not electrons.

I'm with you here, but maybe we can take it one step further
and say that photons are the entities the make up the charge field,
which the electrons and protons are emitting.

I am reading a theory that also suggests,
that if the electron loses it's outer spins, then it becomes a photon.
~Paul

[freemanjack]

Freemanjack said:

Might I suggest that all planetary/solar objects are anodes, interstellar space, being saturated with photons which are more or less 'free electrons

I would like to assert that electrons have what is called a negative CHARGE.
Photons, be they light or the carrier of light, or a particle or a wave, or some as yet unknown combination of any of these properties, do not have a CHARGE.
Photons are not electrons.
Jack

My apologies jack, that was a massive oversimplification, I was referring to the Feynman diagrams that show the absorption and re-emission of a photon and its part in the excitation of the electron, to me suggesting that photon and electron are interchangeable in some respects.
jack

[Webbman]

Freemanjack said:

Might I suggest that all planetary/solar objects are anodes, interstellar space, being saturated with photons which are more or less 'free electrons

I would like to assert that electrons have what is called a negative CHARGE.
Photons, be they light or the carrier of light, or a particle or a wave, or some as yet unknown combination of any of these properties, do not have a CHARGE.
Photons are not electrons.
Jack

My apologies jack, that was a massive oversimplification, I was referring to the Feynman diagrams that show the absorption and re-emission of a photon and its part in the excitation of the electron, to me suggesting that photon and electron are interchangeable in some respects.
jack

or they are the same thing with a different shape and thus slightly different properties.

[freemanjack]

Freemanjack said:

Might I suggest that all planetary/solar objects are anodes, interstellar space, being saturated with photons which are more or less 'free electrons

I would like to assert that electrons have what is called a negative CHARGE.
Photons, be they light or the carrier of light, or a particle or a wave, or some as yet unknown combination of any of these properties, do not have a CHARGE.
Photons are not electrons.
Jack

My apologies jack, that was a massive oversimplification, I was referring to the Feynman diagrams that show the absorption and re-emission of a photon and its part in the excitation of the electron, to me suggesting that photon and electron are interchangeable in some respects.
jack

or they are the same thing with a different shape and thus slightly different properties.

My personal 'best fit' having thrown myself as hard as i dare at the quantum model and as many of its derivatives as I can find, would be something along the lines of; all the particles being vortexes of teaming numerical values in a kinda numerical fog or soup, and what we see as charge is nothing more than the inward or outward vortex of number/value. I was slightly relieved to discover David Bohm arrived at a very similar conclusion in some of his later work (made me question my sanity a little less!)

[lokilokison]

My apologies, this is my very first post on Thunderbolts Forum.
That being said, I'm confused as to the direction of discussion. My familiarity with conventional quantum physics basics lends me to focus on the quantum physics being discussed. Yet, the thread and beginning posts seem to be focused on the details of an electric sun model. I have some thoughts on the model but I'm not sure what aspects the current forum mates wish to discuss first, or whether I'm not posting in the appropriate thread.
As I understand it, most evidence has already thrown out the idea of charge balance in a celestial body, much less a whole solar system. Perhaps the statement was meant more in the idea of an equal amount of charges in the entire Universe, kind of like an electric form of the Conservation of Matter. I'm not sure how that would be even scientifically verified. However, I am novice at most physics and elementary electrical engineering concepts, so it may have been a well-discussed concept in some of the basic reading in undergraduate studies.
The solar model, as described in the EU, seemed pretty clear, yet pragmatic. The stance on what planetary bodies are was not so, as far as I've read. To say all planetary and solar bodies are anodes in a charged plasma field might be over-simplifying the theory, though. From the progress with the SAFIR project, it seems that, as far as stars/suns are concerned, to be true.
However, in quite a few Thunderbolts blogs and Space News updates, comets and planets acting as cometary bodies are supposedly cathodes, negatively charged. The geological surface of many rocky planets are positively charged in relation to their atmospheres (a dielectric medium). Yet, the magnetospheres and rings, correct me if I'm wrong, are negatively charged. This seems to be in support of the statement of planetary bodies as also positively charged, but what about the rest?
The idea of comparing the photon and electron, which are particles in the Standard model, may not be an enlightened tactic in light of considering Ether theory and Ether Vortex theory, as Freemanjack was suggesting, I think. If we were to get to the "grit" of it, photons are the corpuscular concentration (quanta) of energy released from an atom, from the theorized electron shells, right? Some even draw analogy of light to information being passed through a medium, in this case, as a waveform in the Ether.
The Standard model loves particles, is this because of their spherical or point particle natures are easier to mathematically model and calculate? Anyway, photons don't have mass, unless you ask certain groups where it's information or energy is weighed in as a form of mass. Electrons, again, are theorized to have mass because there is charge, which is energy that some weigh in as mass. But, if we went on the road of Ether theory, in similar fashion to Nikola Tesla's work and the Vortex theories of still many others, then electrons could be just as immaterial as plasma sheaths and magnetospheres seem to overly material cosmologies.
That puts the whole idea of Bohr's atomic model and analogies to planetary motion in solar systems (plus the mathematics calculating "spin" and velocity and such) in the museum. IF the structure of the nucleus, similarly put forward by Dr. Robert J. Moon, was responsible for the geometry and physics of atomic arrangement and behavior, then it could also be the generating force behind the perceived electron shells by a form of Ether respiration.
I might have gotten off topic a bit. Sorry. In connection with a positively charged sun model, the Microcosm may be structured similarly to the Macrocosm. That would mean that the things we learn about the things that make valence behavior in atoms may also be analogous to the factors and forces that generate celestial body behavior in all it's diversity, correct? Simple positive and negative wouldn't be the full story behind ionic chemical bonding much less more complex covalent bonding. Should it be sufficient for astrophysics?
That's not a criticism, it's an honest question. That's all.

[freemanjack]

[quotePost]Post by lokilokison » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:16 pm

My apologies, this is my very first post on Thunderbolts Forum. [/quote]
Awesome first post, bravo, encour! Far from off topic, a concise well observed assimilation of a huge topic. And agree on everything in it I am familiar with. Bucky Fuller had a wonderful tetrahedral model for em transmission which also worked for spin and waves. Is toward the end of a 7 hr seminar but I will hunt it out and cue it up should the readers/participants want.
jack