Music Banter - View Single Post

~~[MERIT]~~ · 08-15-2012, 09:38 PM

-

Quote:

Stars beyond the "knee of the curve" have fully tufted (granulated) photospheres. These get brighter with increasing current density but without adding significantly to the tufted area, and so luminosity grows less rapidly--winding up the current of existing arcs, but no longer adding more arcs. [Note: The progression from right to left is not following the evolution of one star in time, in the manner of the conventional interpretation. We are simply cataloging the different appearances of different stars, depending on their electrical environment and size--like the displays of different villages, towns, and cities seen from the air at night.]

At the upper left end of the Main Sequence lies the region of hot, blue-white, O types, with surface temperatures of 35,000o K and more. Stars here are under extreme electrical stress--at the limit of the current density they can absorb. The suggestion here is that extreme electrical stress can lead to a star's increasing its available area by fissioning into parts, perhaps explosively. Such explosions constitute what are called novas.

Recall what we said earlier about internal electrical repulsive forces opposing gravitational collapse and creating a star of uniform density rather than a self-compressing mass growing enormously dense toward the core. Such a uniform density maintained by repulsive internal forces would facilitate fissioning under unstable conditions. The drop in current density accompanying the increase in surface area would now indeed shift both the resultant bodies to new positions rightward on the H-R diagram. For resultant stars of equal size, the current density on each would reduce to 80% of its previous value. If the objects were of different size, the larger would have the larger current density--though still less than the original value. Current density on the smaller member of the pair might fall to a sufficiently low value to turn arc tufting off, dropping it back abruptly to brown dwarf or even giant planet status.

This would explain why it is so common for stars to have partners, and why so many of the gas giants detected in nearby systems appear to orbit unexpectedly close to their parent star. It could also explain why excessively large stars are not observed--there's no reason why clouds contracting purely under gravity shouldn't be any size. In place of the elaborate mechanisms devised to explain variable stars, we have a periodic discharge between companion objects, followed by buildup back to some trigger level--much like a relaxation oscillator. Electrical instabilities in gas giants could account too for the origin of the inner, "terrestrial" planets, which gives the standard accretion model so many problems. The recent birth of Venus from Jupiter is a much-debated candidate--another notion that Velikovsky was vilified for originating.

And the case here is perhaps not entirely devoid of observational corroboration. Around 1900, the star FG Sagittae was an inconspicuous hot star of temperature 50,000o K and magnitude 13. Over the next 60 years it cooled to about 8000o K and brightened to magnitude 9 as its radiation shifted from the far-UV to the visual region. Then, around 1970, spectral lines appeared of newly present elements--formed by some energetic process or liberated from the interior. The star cooled further in the 1970s and 80s, with a falling of magnitude to 16 in 1996. So, after abruptly brightening by four magnitudes, it dropped by seven magnitudes, changing from blue to yellow since 1955, and today appears as the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is unique in affording direct evidence of stellar evolution across the H-R diagram, but on a time scale comparable with the human lifetime--not at all the kind of slow stellar evolution that the mainstream theory envisions. And FG Sagittae is a binary pair!

Another example. Cosmic gamma-ray bursters have been called "the greatest mystery of modern astronomy." 6 They are powerful blasts of gamma- and X-radiation that come from all parts of the sky, but never from the same direction twice. Earth is illuminated by 2 to 3 bursts every day. Until recently it wasn't even known if they came from relatively close by or from the far edge of the universe. Then in 1997 the BeppoSAX X-ray astronomy satellite pinpointed the position of a burst in Orion to within a few arc minutes, allowing visual imaging of the burst. It showed a rapidly fading star, probably the aftermath of a gigantic explosion, next to a faint amorphous blob. Sounds a bit like fissioning again to me--an explosion, followed by a rapidly fading star, accompanied by some sort of companion. Maybe the reason why they never come from the same direction twice is that the process has relieved the electrical stress that triggered it--at least for the time being. Not so mysterious, really.

THE END IS NIGH?

Mainstream astronomy considers O-type stars to be young, and that they age due to the nuclear burning up of their hydrogen. The electrical model has no reason to attribute a greater or lesser age to any spectral type compared to another. A star's location on the H-R diagram depends only on its size and the current density that it is at present experiencing. If that current density should change for any reason, the star will move to a different position on the H-R diagram--perhaps abruptly, like FG Sagittae.

Its age is indeterminate from its mass or spectral type. This carries the sobering implication that our own Sun's future is by no means as certain as mainstream astronomy assures. The Birkeland current powering it could increase or decrease suddenly, and do so at any time. Surely we have stuff for the making of some great science-fiction doomsday scenarios here!