The Asymmetry of Stellar Fusion Products

[Leif]

The clear bias of stellar fusion results in the creation of highly electro-negative elements. This is results in an electrical asymmetry where a net effective positive charge is the result of this process. This results in stellar and galactic charge gradients which account for the fact that 99% of the visible universe is in a PLASMA STATE!!!

 

This means that the electric force is the dominant force in the cosmos and that gravity is much less important.

 

The relative density of stars though out accounts for the gradient.

 

Edited August 23, 2013 by Leif

[MigL]

The sun has a net positive charge ???

 

References ??

[Leif]

The scope of a forum post is not like that of a paper suggested in a pier reviewed journal. It is not difficult to simply google the evidence you ask for. The evidence is ubiquitous.

 

And more than this the galaxy itself is an accumulation of positive charge elements created by the bias of stellar fusion products. The charge gradient across the galaxy is the result of mass concentration at the centre. This effectively creates a charge gradient across the galaxy where the centre concentrates negative potential and the periphery is positively charged.

 

Your body is 66% oxygen which gives it a negative charge bias; the most abundant element in the earth's crust is oxygen, which allows the earth to accumulate negative charge. Perhaps the sun itself is accumulating negative charge because it's bias to positive charge fusion products.

 

 

http://altcosmology.com/The-Sun-is-Electrically-Positively-Charged.php

 

Edited August 24, 2013 by Leif

[John Cuthber]

"The clear bias of stellar fusion results in the creation of highly electro-negative elements."

OK, lets have a look at some facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Stellar fusion starts by making helium which is not electronegative,

"This is results in an electrical asymmetry where a net effective positive charge is the result of this process. "

No it doesn't.

 

"This results in stellar and galactic charge gradients which account for the fact that 99% of the visible universe is in a PLASMA STATE!!!

Most of the visible universe is plasma but that has nothing much to do with electronegativity, it has a lot to do with the fact that the matter concerned is very hot.

 

"This means that the electric force is the dominant force in the cosmos and that gravity is much less important"

Nope, on the large scale gravity is more important because it's always additive while electrical effects fall off as the third or sixth power of distance.

 

"Your body is 66% oxygen which gives it a negative charge bias"

drivel

 

Please cite some actual evidence (peer reviewed rather than just a questionable website)

[Leif]

Electronegativity values are calculated values, and according to the Pauling Scale the value of Fluorine is the highest followed by Oxygen. According to other scales the nobel gases also exhibit electro-negative values and as I recall Helium is the highest in ONE of them.

 

You put no effort in, then I give you little effort in return...do your own research! Questionable website is just a reflection of this...J.D.G.A.F!

 

I think it obvious that gravity and electricity follow the same inverse square law unless you are speaking about electric scaler waves. And so gravity is well known to be an incredibly weak force...so how can you indicate otherwise in good faith?

 

What you should do is research some of these new concepts and find your own conclusions. I am sure that you have never given consideration to any of this thought before...am I right?

 

Also I think it is a fact that your body has a negative charge and this knowledge is 70 plus years old now. The fact that the earth's crust is highly negatively charged goes back over a 100 years now and is found to have originated with Tesla!

 

I am suggesting that based upon typical composition and densities of matter by and large, that the centre of any galaxy will be negatively charged and the outer regions will have a consequent positive charge....hardly difficult to comprehend?

 

It does indeed seem strange that the universe may yet prove to be a fractal expression in both fantastic and yet unforeseen and yet essential ways?

 

Good Luck and keep me posted!

 

 

PS...labeling something as drivel is not expressing a fact. The clergy thought Copernicus's helio centric solar system was drivel, and that was probably all they could say in their own defence of epicycles?...don't you think so?

Edited August 24, 2013 by Leif

[StringJunky]

The clergy thought Copernicus's helio centric solar system was drivel, and that was probably all they could say in their own defence of epicycles?...don't you think so?

Hmm...makes a change from someone comparing themselves to Galileo I suppose...

Edited August 24, 2013 by StringJunky

[Leif]

It doesn't make obvious sense to me that some of the other negativity scale values, aside from Pauling's give helium the highest value and not fluorine; except that the nobel gases are reactive elements when in a solution of water.

 

I do not see where that gets you with Helium in a non-earth environment where there is no liquid water. But it definitely should have some net positive functional charge attributed to helium here.

 

[John Cuthber]

OK let';s look at electronegativity - acording to wiki.

Electronegativity, symbol χ, is a chemical property that describes the tendency of an atom or a functional group to attract electrons

There are lots of scales for it and no two agree so it's obviously a bit bogus.

 

Now let's look at the actual data for how well atoms attract electrons (which is actually relevant since the elements in stars aren't doing chemistry)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity#Electron_affinities_of_the_elements

It's near zero for the inert gases.

 

 

Re."except that the nobel gases are reactive elements when in a solution of water."

No they are not, and the word is noble, btw.

re "You put no effort in, then I give you little effort in return...do your own research!"

Actually I have put in a fair bit of effort over the years a few years as a student and a few decades as a scientist- that's how I know things like why most of the visible universe is plasma.

You ask "And so gravity is well known to be an incredibly weak force...so how can you indicate otherwise in good faith?"

Well, the simple answer is that I know what I'm talking about.

Gravity is a weak force, but it's always attractive. half the time electrostatic forces repel so, on the large scale they pretty much cancel out.

 

"Also I think it is a fact that your body has a negative charge and this knowledge is 70 plus years old now. The fact that the earth's crust is highly negatively charged goes back over a 100 years now and is found to have originated with Tesla!"

I'm a fairly good conductor and I'm not isolated from earth so I will have little if any net charge.

Tesla said a lot of things: not all of them were right.

 

 

OK, if you don't like the word drivel, how about a phrase that Copernicus and the clergy would all have understood.

"Your body is 66% oxygen which gives it a negative charge bias"

non sequiteur

Oh, and claiming that something is due to something else, when it isn't, is drivel.

 

 

 

"I do not see where that gets you with Helium in a non-earth environment where there is no liquid water." well perhaps you shouldn't have introduced water into the discussion (wrongly).

"I think it obvious that gravity and electricity follow the same inverse square law "

I don't, because most of the time, with electrical effects you are talking about dipole- dipole interactions which vary as the cube of the distance or induced dipole-induced dipole interactions which vary as the sixth power (as I said, but you didn't read or understand)

 

But that's just reality- you choose to believe that something which is wrong, is obvious.

Fine, but it's not science.

 

" What you should do is research some of these new concepts and find your own conclusions. I am sure that you have never given consideration to any of this thought before...am I right?"

No.

[Leif]

Fine John,

 

Then please account for the huge negative charge that the earth has accumulated; please enlighten us with your insight.

 

Also explain the fact that the rotation of the galaxies is adequately described in an electric charge model while it is not-described adequately with the gravitational model(prediction and observations do not match);and that the only way that the gravitational model can every possibly work is to fabricate a quality called Dark Matter to account for the discrepancies...dark Matter is un-falsifiable and therefore unscientific.

 

You seem so full of prejudice and blind sighted criticism that I am also sure that you clearly must have a solution in mind and your solution is much, much simpler and better than the one I put forward?

 

I'd be glad to hear your ideas and am awaiting your insights to help clear up these trifling nuisances and paradoxes!

 

Somehow the truth keeps tugging at and eroding away at my algorithms...DANG!

 

The simple idea John is that the predominating result of stellar-fusion is the formation of elements that create an electrical asymmetry resulting in large scale electrical charge gradients. It's not phd material, and maybe you are just way to smart to understand this and it's implications?

 

The problem is certainly not resting with you, rather the universe is not complex enough to satisfy your needs and so the universe must be wrong!

 

I know that Linus Pauling won 2 nobel prizes in his career and that he saw the need for the concept of electro-negativity; and yet you see fit to call this concept rubbish. Please, for the sake of the humble edification of the rest of us, please, please proceed to enlightening us with your incredible insights and fill in the gaps!

 

I for one, and the rest of the world(which I do not speak for) are awaiting the pronouncements of your radiant brilliance.

 

Perhaps you also have a fictitious construct to introduce yourself so that you might account for the difference between your belief and the reality?

 

Edited August 25, 2013 by Leif

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Leif - do not attack your respondents or make negative character judgments about other members.

 

Secondly - a robust scientific defence does not consist of making sweeping assertions peppered with insults and requests for your questioners to do better if they can.

 

You have been challenged on numerous points - pony up some evidence or rationale behind your claims; that would mean maths, peer-reviewed or at least well-source information, or at very least a chain of logic from known to unknown.

 

do not respond to this modnote within the thread

 

 

[Leif]

That was hardly a negative judgement! It was a positive judgement from a chiraliacaly biased point of view..I LOVE JOHN...HE IS BRILLIANT!

 

Edited August 25, 2013 by Leif

[swansont]

Your body is 66% oxygen which gives it a negative charge bias; the most abundant element in the earth's crust is oxygen, which allows the earth to accumulate negative charge. Perhaps the sun itself is accumulating negative charge because it's bias to positive charge fusion products.

You brought this up before and I pointed out that electronegativity is for atoms on their own. You body is not 66% monoatomic oxygen.

 

Further, I think you have a misconception concerning electronegativity. There is no net charge on an oxygen atom. The electronegativity simply tells you its relative propensity to attract or give up electrons. This "functional" charge is not an actual charge. An oxygen atom, or a molecule, does not have an actual net charge. What the electronegativity tells you is whether an atom will gain or lose an electron given the chance, when interacting (or competing) with another atom.

 

BTW 66% oxygen would be by weight, not number of atoms. If you talk about charge, then the salient variable is numbers of atoms and charges, not the mass.

dark Matter is un-falsifiable and therefore unscientific.

 

 

The gravitational effects of dark matter have been observed. Not being aware of results is not the same as the results not existing. Further, the protocol of modeling and testing/observing provides for falsifiability and is, in fact, scientific.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Everyone say goodbye to Leif. Bye-bye, Leif.

 

(NB. I have hidden the offending posts)

[John Cuthber]

Goodbye Leif.

Just on the off-chance you read this, I don't actually need to have a better idea in order to point out that your ideas are wrong.

After all, you say things like "the nobel gases are reactive elements when in a solution of water." which is plainly false.

 

However, if you want to know what my "better model" is, read a good science textbook.

Come to think of it, read one anyway.

[arc]

Everyone say goodbye to Leif. Bye-bye, Leif.

 

(NB. I have hidden the offending posts)

 

Not the copy burned into my brain.

[GeeKay]

If human beings are negatively charged, does this explain why we find it so hard to get along with each other sometimes?