The Electric Sun

A reader writes:

I have recently read information about what is called "The Electric Sun Hypothesis."
It postulates that stars are not powered by internal nuclear fusion (as the standard model of stellar evolution teaches), but instead by electric currents in the surrounding galactic plasma. Theoretically, fusion only takes place in the upper photosphere and not in the core.

This hypothesis seems to contain some elements of Univironmental Determinism because it doesn't treat the sun (or stars) as an isolated system, but rather, as something that is interacting with the macrocosm in order to function. The nuclear-fusion model seems to be based on the premise that space is empty and that stars are self-sustaining, non-interacting, microcosms.

The Electric Sun Hypothesis (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk) is intriguing. I am especially concerned that the surface of the sun is only 6000 degrees, while the corona has a temperature in the millions. If the heat was due to nuclear fusion, as maintained in the conventional theory, we would expect the temperature to diminish with distance from the core, just like it does in the case of Earth. The sun, like the rest of the universe is 99% plasma (see Plasma Physics and Infinite Universe Theory, my blog of 5/20/08), so free electrons must be a good part of any theory about the sun’s power generation. Plasma theory helps to show just how interconnected the infinite universe is. Unfortunately, I haven’t studied either theory enough to make a judgment. However, I don’t think that the nuclear-fusion model necessarily requires a systems approach for it to work. The hydrogen bomb, for instance, undergoes fusion that radiates submicrocosmic motion throughout the macrocosm. This happens even though “modern” physicists may consider the energy released to be “matterless motion” rather than the supermicrocosm-to-supermicrocosm transfer that the ether provides as electromagnetic radiation. Also, I don’t think that the conventional model claims the stars to be “self-sustaining,” as the hydrogen fuel in any particular star has a finite life as it supposedly is converted to helium. Nothing in the universe is “self-sustaining” and an electric sun would be no exception. Like all things, it was formed via convergence and it will dissipate via divergence. The electrical plasma that surrounds it probably is necessary for its formation and continued existence, but, it will not be there forever.

And also:

I'm guessing that if stars form initially from clouds of hydrogen, they do so when interstellar material pushes equally from all sides until the submicrocosms reach a state of equilibrium. But, how can this happen if there is no counter-push from the core?

According to UD, all matter, including hydrogen, is subject to bombardment from other matter. All matter, however, is always in constant motion. The “state of equilibrium” is simply the point at which the motions within the microcosm and the motions within the macrocosm are temporarily similar, although never equal. Thus there always is a “counter-push” from the core. If there wasn’t, the core would collapse entirely. This idea has great generality, for it illustrates the assumption of INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) once again. If the matter in the core stopped moving, it would disappear—an impossibility.

Infinite Universe Theory According to the Internet

Here are a few telling quotes from a recent exchange on the Internet:

Emily: “I have this theory about the universe. It's infinitely big right? So anything you can possibly imagine can exist. Like another planet just like ours with people exactly like us sitting here having the exact same conversation.”

Frank: “Wait, that means you can also have a planet where penguins kick field goals. That is totally awesome. I love this theory.”

This exchange has special meaning for me. Before doing the research for “The Ten Assumptions of Science” and TSW, I was involved in a similar conversation. I still think that the universe is infinitely large, but commensurate with my assumption that it also infinite in the microcosmic direction, I can evaluate the remainder of the exchange with aplomb. It is not true that INFINITY means that anything you can possibly imagine can exist. It actually means just the opposite. INFINITY makes the assumption of RELATIVISM possible. RELATIVISM assumes that “All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things.” In other words, INFINITY makes identities impossible. I once thought, just like Emily, that there could be another Glenn Borchardt exactly like me on another planet. No more.

In an infinite universe, each microcosm is part of a unique univironment. So there will never be another Glenn Borchardt who writes TSW all over again, or another Emily who asks idealistic philosophical questions, or another Frank, who imagines penguins kicking field goals. It is not true that anything anyone can possibly imagine can exist. It is true that there are an infinite number of possibilities, but it also is true that there are no impossibilities.

Self-Transformation and Univironmental Determinism

Sometimes seemingly trivial word usage is extremely telling in a philosophical sense. For instance David Perlman, the eminent science reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle wrote on January 12 about: “stem cells that proved able to transform themselves into a variety of other tissue cells.” Perlman, still going strong at the ripe old age of 90, has a wonderful facility with the “philosophy of science”—the philosophy of today’s scientists. That philosophy, however, is systems philosophy, whose main claim to fame is the exaggeration of the importance of the system (microcosm) over its environment (macrocosm). The truth is that stem cells cannot “transform themselves.” If they could, we would have no possibility of controlling them. They would form tissue cells willy-nilly, in tune with their “own capricious desires.” Instead, they are controlled by the univironment, the interaction of the microcosm and the macrocosm. Our goal is to use stem cells to produce spinal cords and other organs. To do that, we will have to change the macrocosm of each stem cell to produce the desired effect—a good example of univironmental determinism in action. “Transform themselves” should be dumped into the same linguistic garbage barrel that is labeled “self-organization.”

Univironmental Theory of Gravity

Dear Dr. Borchardt:

As I try to understand the premise behind the Univironmental Theory of Gravity, some questions have arisen. I comprehend that objects are being pushed, instead of being pulled.
What I am having a bit of trouble understanding is what is taking place when a planet's "gravitation" (such as Jupiter) is used to accelerate a spacecraft; what they call a "gravity assist."
Also, as I can envision material emitted from the sun pushing the planets in the same direction as the sun spins, what accounts for the discrepancy in the orbits of comets, for example?

Again, it is a great privilege to speak with you.

Frederic Frees


You are correct that the Univironmental Theory of Gravity uses the “push theory” of gravitation, continuing the approach that Newton used in formulating his three laws of motion. There are no “pulls” in nature, although it often seems that way (a vacuum cleaner is a good example). Because the “pushers” were too small to be observed and Newton really could not know what physically caused gravitation, he reverted to the common view that gravitation was an “attraction.” The mathematics are the same whether gravity is treated as a push or a pull.

A “gravity assist” occurs when a satellite intercepts a fast-moving planet. Jupiter, for example, is moving in its orbit at 48,000 kilometers per hour. The satellite temporarily becomes part of the Jupiter-satellite system as it is pushed into orbit around Jupiter. This is sort of like a hitch hiker running to catch a ride on a fast-moving train--providing his arms don’t pull off. When he jumps off the train, his body will have the velocity of the train, not his original velocity. [Please don’t try either of these experiments!]

The “pushers” involved in gravitation are not necessarily emitted from the sun. They exist throughout the universe, which must be infinite for the Univironmental Theory of Gravity to work. Think of it like this: Suppose you are traveling down from the mountains holding onto a balloon or thin plastic bottle. As you approach closer and closer to sea level, the balloon will become smaller and the thin bottle will tend to be crushed. The change in air pressure (1000- kph impacts of nitrogen and oxygen molecules) will “push” the walls of both items together. I speculate that gravity works in a similar way. Massive objects normally contain atoms having a very dense nucleus surrounded by “empty space” and a few electrons in orbit. Because of its high density, the nucleus actually must have a surfeit of gravitons (or whatever the pushers are). It is as if the nucleus (microcosm) was a vacuum relative to its environment (macrocosm). A push results. This univironmental interaction would apply universally to all microcosm-macrocosm interactions. Even the pushers would have pushers, ad infinitum.


The elongated, very large orbits of the comets probably reflect their low masses and low densities and the fact that they are partially destroyed whenever they are in that part of their orbit nearest the sun. But, as always, the pushers that keep the solar system (microcosm) together must come from outside the solar system (macrocosm).

From Matter in Motion to Consciousness

A reader writes:

DEAR SIR GREAT ARTICLE…………I AM NOT A SCIENTIST……..I WANTED TO SHARE SOME IDEAS…..IF THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE THEN MATTER AND ENERGY…MUST ALSO BE INFINITE( NO BEGINNING OR END IT CTS BOTH WAYS)… …..SO THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING NESS A VACUM -- A STRANGE THING ON A PROGRAM FROM THE B.B.C. STEPHEN HAWKINS SAID///// THE UNIVERSE ROSE SPONTANEOUSLY OUT OF NOTHING….. INFINITY LIKE GOD CANNOT BE COCEPTUALIZED---- OR UNDERSTOOD WITH OUR BRAIN……..WE JUST THINK A LONG TIME…… NOW THERE ARE THEORIES ABOUT MULTIPLE BIG BANGS--------- BUT IF THIS IS TRUE THERE HAD TO BE A FIRST ONE,,,,,,,,AND USING LOGIC IF THERE WAS A FIRST ONE THERE MUST BE A LAST ONE……..SO REALLY WE ARE SAYING INFINITE OR FINITE UNIVERSE…….IF FINITE SOMETHING EXISTED.. PRIOR TO BIG BANG HAWKINGS SAYS NOTHING..EXISTED AND MYSTERIOUSLY SOMETHING POPPED OUT…… IF THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE….IS THERE SOME HIDDEN INTELLIGENCE SOMETHING OTHER THAN ENERGY OR MATTER………..IF NOT HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN CAUSALITY………WHAT CAUSES ENERGY TO CHANGE INTO MATTER AND VICEVERSA -------------AND HOW DO WE DEAL WITH CONSCIOUSNESS……….ARE ENERGY AND MATTER CONSCIOUS-------- ARE THEY AWARE OF THEIR EXISTENCE,,,,, ?????,,,,,,,,I THREW THESE IDEAS OUT WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS BRENT MAC


Brent:

Great questions for a “non-scientist.” I like to think of the infinite universe as matter in motion (because energy has been used in both senses). Each portion of the universe moves with respect to all other portions of the universe. Nothingness, like pure empty space, is an idea, just like solid matter is an idea. In actuality, all real things exist between these two extremes. No space is completely empty, just as no matter is completely without “empty space.” The idea of the Big Bang theorists that the universe could explode out of nothing is absurd and a drastic violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed). The Big Bang Theory is based on religious assumptions, as I show in “The Scientific Worldview.”

There is no hidden intelligence, only matter in motion in its infinite variety. Causality is defined as the interaction (contact) of at least two portions of the universe in which one mass is accelerated by another (F=ma). Matter really cannot be converted into energy. What really happens with the E=mc² equation is the transformation of internal matter in motion into external matter in motion (of the ether). Einstein’s rejection of the ether lead to the idea that matter could disappear by being converted to energy construed as matterless motion. Most people believe in matterless motion in the form of spirits, souls, etc., so this interpretation was immediately and widely accepted.

Matter in motion generally is not conscious until it appears in an environment in which consciousness is the only possibility (e.g., invertebrate brains). Throughout the universe, you will observe that matter in motion only does that which is possible. There are an infinite number of possibilities, but not a single impossibility. Although infinitely complicated, brains do the same thing and are not removed from the strictures of determinism, making “free will” likewise impossible.