Heyas, everyone. This is my first post here at BA.

I got tired of lurking, so I've decided to contribute something. Here's some things that I think constitute evidence against the Electric Star theory of the neo-Velikovskian catastrophists (Thornhill, Scott, et al.). Tim, I think you might be the most interested.

1. If stars' luminosity and spectral classes are determined by electric input and size of plasma pinched together in the star's formation (both should
always be random), then there should not be gaps in the HR diagram. There are. We have discrete collections of stars on the HS diagram: white dwarves fit along a narrow strip on the bottom, main sequencers/red & brown dwarves fit on the diagonal line from top left to bottom right, and
giants/supergiants are on the far top, stetching across all spectral classes as well. As such, the HR Diagram looks like a backwards Z. If stars truly
were powered by electricity,--that they are formed by a randomly sized agglomeration of plasma pinched together which is in turn powered by a random level of electric input--we should expect stars filling up the
observed gaps in the HR diagram. We should see spectral classes O, B, & A having luminosities in the gaps between the white dwarves, the main sequencers, and the giants. We should also see M class stars with
luminosities filling up the gaps between the red main sequecers and the red giants. There are none.

2. Likewise, electric stars should come in all sizes (diameters). Real stars don't. We have some the size of Earth, some the size of Jupiter, some the size of the Sun, and others are a number of times the size of the Sun. While it gets less exact in size relations for stars larger than red dwarves (i.e. main sequencers range from some 0.5 to 2.5 solar radii and
giants/supergiants have a larger range of, say 8 to 100 solar radii), the fact that red and brown dwarves are always no smaller than the size of Jupiter (0.1 to 0.5 solar radii for RDs and 0.1 to 0.2 for BDs) and
white dwarves are always the size of Earth (0.01 solar radii), not to
mention pulsars are always city-sized (about 10 km). We see no red pulsars, nor blue or white stars the diameter of Jupiter. Nor have we identified any stars the diameter of Neptune or the moon. Also, why are
there no intermediates between M dwarves and M giants? Or between OB dwarves (0.01 solar radii), OB main sequencers, and OB giants? The smaller types always being at specific sizes and generally at the same
spectral classes, as well as the others pointed out, tend to rule out the idea of electric stars and rather conforms to the fusion theory's expectations.

3. Supernovae also occur only in specific types of stars: supergiants. If supernovae were caused by high electric stress that make the bright blue stars fission, then we would expect not just blue supergiants (which do explode), but also white dwarves, white and blue main sequencers, and
supposedly also pulsars all having higher rates of "fissioning" than red giants. Instead, we see only the massive supergiants explode.

Well, what do you all think?

~Zero Signal, former Velikovskian

__________________
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins

Welcome to the conversations zero signal!

I did a search and found this site that apparently is under construction but discusses the electric star hypothesis. Sounds like a standard plasma cosmology website. Could you summarize your understanding of the claims of the electric star proponents? I saw a few things that appear to be wrong in the above site, but before I respond to anything, I want to make sure I know what I'm responding to.

Your work sound plausible to me--you're saying that we observe stars with discrete sets of characteristics which can be explained by the evolution of nuclear fusion, but which are not well explained by the mechanism of the Electric Star proponents. But I dunno much about the details of stellar evolution or the Electric Sun stuff.

Since Tim wouldn't do it himself, I'll toot his horn for him: Here's a link to TT's homepage; scroll down to find links to his pages critiquing the Electric Sun and related hypotheses. Good reading!

okay you ask a lot of questions.

There is a minimum size a star needs to be to start being a star. 7 times Jupiter I think is the minimum

Transitional stars - there are - planetary nebula are caused by M class stars moving back down the HR to become white dwarfs.

A star's postion on the HR is not static. All through their life a star moves around. The sun is a main sequence sub dwarf. In a few billion years it will migrate up to an M class giant. This will happen when the sun begins to burn helium. After a while the energy level will drop. The sun will then move down till it reaches the white dwarf class.

It must be remembered we only see snapshots of multi-billion year life cycles

Glen

Tim need to be taken seriously.
Who is that guy with a beard wearing a wizard robe and a magician hat on his head?

http://www.tim-thompson.com/bio.html

There is a minimum mass required for an object to be a star, but not a minimum size. A brown dwarf, the least dense object that might be called a star, requires about 50 times the mass of Jupiter. However, additional mass does not necessarily mean additional size. The BA has an explanation of that here: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ml#browndwarfs

Additionally it depends on what you mean by 'star'. A neutron star might only be 5 miles across despite having many many times the mass of our sun.

Yes, but since we can see billions of stars, we can assume that we can see all of the most common types of stars at every stage of their evolution.

I'm not too familiar with the electric star theory, but I agree with Zero Signal that there are a lot of holes in it. I think nuclear fusion explains the observed star formation and life cycle much better.

Here the model proposed
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

In standard theory, the minimum mass required to be a star is about 0.08 solar masses, or about 80 Jupiter masses, where star is defined as something that is powered by hydrogen fusion in the interior. A brown dwarf is usually taken to be anything between 13 and 80 Jupiter masses. In that mass range, the interior temperatures are high enough to promote the fusion of deuterons (proton bound to a neutron) into Helium-3. The fusion of deuterons is very low energy compared to proton fusion, so the brown dwarf cannot be as hot as a star. Finally, below about 13 Jupiter masses even deuteron fusion won't happen, and the object would commonly be called a planet. So far as I know, there is no official IAU sanctioned definition for "brown dwarf" vs "star" or "planet", so these are just the definitions that are common in the astronomical community.

My pages already referenced do a pretty good job, I think, at pointing out the weaknesses of the "electric star" hypothesis, which certainly seems to qualify as genuine crackpot stuff. But I think the primary weakness is that the hypothesis relies on a current of electrons flowing into the sun. Yet a small fleet of spacecraft probing the the interplanetary environment for nearly 50 years now, has failed to detect even one of those sneaky little electrons. It would seem that the electric star folks are in the unenviable position of continuing to advance a hypothesis that has already been falsified by direct observation. So, worse than mere "pseudoscience", I think "crackpot" is what the electric star idea deserves to be called.

Yes. That's exactly what my post means. According to the Electric Star theory, a star's temperature and therefore spectral class is determined by the current density. Now take into account that a randomly sized amount of plasma and gas is collected together to form a star. We all know that a star's luminosity is a function of its size and spectral class. This being so, we should expect totally random luminosities and sizes in the ES scenario. This scenario would in effect fill up the gaps in the HR diagram--especially the glaring gaps between M dwarves and M giants and between white dwarves and O, B, & A main sequencers. This isn't the case and it therefore constitutes a significant problem for proponents of the ES theory. OTOH, stars are arranged on the HR diagram exactly as expected in the fusion model.

As far as supernovae go, they should occur in O, A, and B stars of all three types (white dwarf, main sequence, giant/supergiant) in the ES theory. This is because the ES theory demands that supernovae be the result of stars fissioning from intense electric stress, which is found in those hotter stars. In reality, though, supernovae only originate from massive stars (8+ solar masses, IIRC) of all spectral classes, in accordance to the fusion theory.

I hope this is a more concise summary. As far as I know I'm the only one to address these things and how they add to the already formidable set of problems faced by the Electric Star crowd.

__________________
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins

They give at least four example of Stars who don`t follow evolution of nuclear fusion model.
See:
Examples That Falsify (Disprove) The Accepted Stellar Evolution Process
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
Quote:
The most recent is: "V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the "expanding" nebula which now appears to surround it." [Ital and emphasis added.]
So now there are at least four prime examples of stars that do not evolve according to the accepted thermonuclear model of how stars are powered.  These are stars that falsify the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles.  All of them act in a manner predicted by the Electric Star hypothesis.

In the Electric Star version of "stellar evolution" things can happen quickly.   If the fusion model were correct, it would take hundreds of thousands of years for a star to change from one place in the HR diagram to another.  It would not be observed within a "human lifetime".  It didn't take FG Sagittae hundreds of thousands of years to "run down."  The star V838 Monocerotis has moved half way across the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in a few months.  Migrating across the HR diagram can happen very rapidly - and apparently does!  How many such counter-examples does it take for astrophysicists to realize their stellar fusion theory has been falsified?

You should be surprised than they use the HR diagram -as a demonstration for the validity of the ES theory.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

Actually, Scott is not really trying to conform the ES theory with the HR diagram at all. He is simply listing various supposed anomalies in the fusion theory.

Again, these are anomalies which supposedly pose problems with the fusion model (some of these anomalies have actually been explained in the fusion model, such as FG Sagittae whose sudden change was the result of the "helium flash" phenomenon). However, they do not necessarily falsify the fusion model outright, even assuming that the arguements are valid. Scott exaggerates a lot on this point. For instance, V838 Monoceros doesn't necessarily falsify the fusion model for the simple fact that is a new class of object. It may take a while to figure that thing out, and it will most likely eventually fit into the fusion model. V838 Mono and the other anomalies, if they do anything at all, will likely do nothing more than result in a modification to the fusion model. The fusion theory, like any good theory, has room for modification. It isn't like if one thing goes wrong with the conventional theory or we find something that doesn't fit it right away, we have to automatically throw it out and replace it with a totally new theory. That's not how science works, bro.

For now, the fusion theory does a sufficient job in explaining how stars function. It conforms to basic physics, e.g. atomic theory, quantum theory, etc. The ES theory, while an interesting concept IMHO, should be set on the shelf for now. Actually, with the problems it has that Tim has pointed out, it is best set on the shelf in the shed in the back yard of the person 3 blocks down the road whose house is surrounded by a 7-foot-tall cyclone fence, where it will collect dust for a while to come. Someday, a legit scientist might brush it off at take a serious look at it as an alternative solar theory, but I nor anyone else sees that happening anytime in the near (or distant) future. It's just not good enough of a theory.

__________________
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins

Note than I am not a supporter of the ES theory for the reasons cited by Tim Thompson about the supposed incoming electrons powering the electrical Sun model but Thornhill admit this fact,-Than the circuit is not discovered yet-

However the HR diagram is not cited only to point out anomalies.They
Add A New Horizontal Axis Scale named:
Current Density at the Surface of each Star".
Based on that they base their analysis.
Consider moving from the lower right of the HR diagram toward the left. In so doing we are moving in the direction of increasing current density at the star's surface.


I wait to see some reasonable explanations from the fusion model explaning
V838 Monoceros other than saying this is a new class of object.

I'm a little confused by the graph Orion38, does it imply that density is directly related to temperature (since they both increase as one goes from right to left on the graph)? I'm asking becasue I don't know much about the intracacies of stellar formation - why would a star's density increase with temperature? From the graph it looks like some white dwarfs are less dense than many main-sequence stars.

I took a look at that link and they get it wrong again. From the link:

This is just sloppy!!! If you read the original paper by Kirkpatrick in which the L -type spectral class is defined it is clearly seen that the authors do not consider all L-class objects to be stars. They concluded that the upper L-class may be true stars, but by the lower L-class they are certainly not normal stars.

Yet the electric cosmos people are criticizing them as if they were unaware that their "stars" are too cool to be "stars" (refer to portion I've bolded above). Orion, the electric cosmos people have set up a straw man. Whoever wrote that for Electric cosmos needs to go back and read the original papers on the L-class stars!

[quote="dgruss23"]Why do you think I quoted the presentation by
*Orion38 wrote: You should be surprised than they use the HR diagram -as a demonstration for the validity of the ES theory.*

First I think than their
New Horizontal Axis Scale named:
Current Density at the Stars surface
*Is an to much easy way to try demonstrated their point*.You find other flaw.

But even powered by nuclear fusion the Sun can be define as a gravitationaly bound Plasma.
8)

It seem they are talking about the electrical current density at the surface of the Star.

Okay. I know even less about electrical current systems so is it true that the electrical current density would increase with temperature?

The theory proposed by ES propoment is exactly the opposite.

An increase of the current density at the surface of a Star = increasing temperature (So increasing luminosity)
They give as example V838 Monoceros being demonstrating their claims.

Orion – this electric cosmos site contains so many errors I’m not even sure where to begin. I guess I’ll point out a couple of the most flagrant errors/distortions/flaws in logic to illustrate.

We’re just supposed to take their word on this? They offer no justification for any of this – even if there are right they need to provide the evidence. Perhaps its explained elsewhere on the site, but after what follows I see no reason to trust anything they say.

This criticism by EC is quibbling over “impressions”. The reality is that in the standard model the main sequence is a mass sequence and stars evolve sequentially off the main sequence as they age – hence the whole concept of the main sequence turn-off for open and globular star cluster H-R diagrams.

Gimme a break!!!!! Whoever wrote this makes it sound as if there is some ridiculous conspiracy going on here. Astronomers have stellar evolution models – based upon nuclear fusion and the behavior of gases.

Next up this section title: Examples That Falsify (Disprove) The Accepted Stellar Evolution Process. This person has no clue about scientific reasoning. The examples provided do not “disprove” the standard models of stellar evolution. First, as I’ll point to in a second it is not clear that these examples contradict standard models. Second – if they do, then we’re looking at new phenomenon that may or may not be fit into the standard model. This is analogous to our discussions on Arp’s redshift anomalies. I’m usually quick to point out that the anomalies do not in fact outright eliminate any standard models because they could represent phenomenon superimposed upon the standard redshift view. Here is the first example provided by EC:

It’s the central star of a planetary nebula – they evolve fast. The planetary nebula stage only lasts about 50,000 years. It must be demonstrated by EC that this rapid change in this star actually conflicts with standard stellar evolution. They haven't done that.

*bangs head on table 3 times* Has this idiot (sorry - not remaining calm) ever heard of the concept of a core? These stars have massive cores. The cores contract when H fusion stops. The core gets hotter. Then He fusion begins. THE OUTER SURFACE TEMPERATURE RESULTS FROM THE EXPANSION OF THE OUTER LAYERS OF THE STAR AFTER HYDROGEN FUSION STOPS. WHEN A GAS IS EXPANDED AND SPREAD OVER A LARGER AREA IT COOLS. IT COOLS. IT COOOOLS!!!! Underneath that expanded surface is a nice toasty warm core that IS Fusing!!!!!

* bangs head on table 4 times and splashes face with ice-water * Ok, this person has about as much of a clue as my wife’s horses when it comes to astronomy. They are called white dwarfs because they are very small, dense, cores of stars that were once on the main sequence. BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LEFT OVER CORE THEY ARE VERY HOT TO START – HELIUM FUSION TAKES PLACE AT 100 MILLION KELVIN AFTER ALL. THEY ARE HOT. THEY ARE HOT. THEN THEY COOL. EVENTUALLY THEY COOL AND ARE NOT SO HOT AND THERFORE THEY ARE NO LONGER WHITE. BUT THEY ARE STILL THE COOLING CORE OF A DEAD STAR AND SO THEY ARE STILL WHITE DWARVES!!!!!!!!

Then I refer you back to my previous post about this link. Whoever wrote this is not a reliable source. There are simple mischaracterizations of current models that suggest the person has never even picked up an introductory astronomy textbook. I see no reason to trust what they say about their own theory (which little supporting evidence is offered for) when they make such foolish mistakes about the standard theory.

I hope those are enough examples to clarify why this site should not be trusted.

Orion - you do or do not support this Electric Star "theory"?

I always stated than I don`t support the Electric Star theory.

I think they have totally messed the work done by Alf Elfven and Anthony Peratt who use the term -Gravitationaly Bound Plasma- when he describe the Sun or other Stars.
This is why my reference source about Plasma Cosmology is Perrat`s site.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html
8)

And they completely mess up the mainstream view on stellar evolution. Its one thing to say you think you have a better theory. Its another thing altogether to say you have a better theory and then botch up the descriptions of the mainstream theory in your criticism of the mainstream. The mistakes I found on that site are ridiculous - and I wasn't even looking at the electric star model - just the description of the standard stellar evolution model.

The comments about the white dwarfs, red giants, and L-class stars are unbelievable. Whoever wrote that does not understand the mainstream view.

You're just a sympathizer, then? So do you in fact support the fusion theory?

It's Hannes Alfven, BTW, and Peratt's page is probably the best actual plasma cosmology page around. Yes, neo-Velikovskian catastrophists have done plasma cosmologists and Arp wrong by associating them with their work. V's supporters (Thornhill, Scott, Talbott, etc.) simply adopt the work of PCers and Arp because they think it conforms with and/or supports their work. It's a pity that most people get sucked into the catastrophist miasma simply by looking for info on PC or Arp. Ironically, many creationists (including geocentricist Marshall Hall), are rather keen on adopting the claims of the catastrophists to support their claims.

__________________
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins

>It's Hannes Alfven, BTW
Thanks for the correction.

>>>>EDITED
I support the fusion theory. -That gives a Gravitationally Bound Plasma at its final stage.-

However the treatment made by the Plasma Cosmologists about

Sunspots, Coronal Holes

Prominences, Flares, and CME's is interesting.

dgruss23 what is your analysis or comments on this
*See text and images near 2/3 mark*
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

I'll take a closer look at the site when I get a chance, but again you don't have to go far into it to find flaws. EC sites the "missing neutrinos" as a flaw of the current solar model. For the longest time, astronomers were detecting only 1/3 of the predicted solar neutrinos. But there are three types of neutrinos and only one of those types was being detected as was discovered in 1991 .

No need to analyse all the page.Tim have already done the work.

Only the section about
Sunspots, Coronal Holes
Prominences, Flares, and CME's is interesting.

located near the 2/3 of the bottom of the page :wink:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm