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.