Seldom do we hear the voice of dissent on these matters from within the closed world of the astrophysicist. There are unanswered questions to be sure, but funding which supports the search for those answers is used for ever-onward extrapolation. When, I wonder, will there be academic funding for someone who has the good sense to say "something is wrong" and is willing to track back to survey the faults in the path already followed?
It means that the Sun must have a positive electric potential, just as it has a negative gravitational potential. Matter, when free to move under the influence of gravitational forces, seeks a state of lower potential, but in the stellar plasma that means a commensurate increase in electric potential. How does Nature cope with this dilemma? The answer can be worked out as a simple mathematical exercise which any high school physics student should be able to perform. Nature allows gravity to bring just enough hydrogen atoms into close ionizing encounters to free enough protons to account for a positive electric charge density equal to the mass density of the hydrogen gas multiplied by the square root of G, the constant of gravitation. [The detailed analysis is in Appendix I of my book 'Physics Unified' ISBN 0 85056 009 8].
In other words, the maximum mass density of a hydrogen star can be little different from that calculable from compacting rigid spheres, each having the mass of the hydrogen atom and the radius of the electron's K-shell orbit around its proton nucleus. Furthermore, there will be a distributed uniform positive charge density throughout the body of the star, neutralized by an enclosing ionospheric surface sphere formed by an electron gas.
The high school physics student who has been introduced to Bohr's theory of the hydrogen atom will know that the relevant radius is 5.29 billionths of centimetre. Standard physics data sources show that it takes 0.67x1024 hydrogen atoms to sum to one gram. From these data, that physics student, if reasonably astute is estimating how small spheres pack together to fill a space cube, can work out the mass density of that star.
The cosmological question this poses is "How does that theoretical mass density compare with the known mean mass density, 1.41 gm/cc of the Sun?" When you work out the answer to this question you will see reason for asking why what has just been described is not mentioned in textbooks on astronomy. You may further wonder what governs the temperature of the Sun and you should be puzzled by the following questions.
"If the Sun has a uniform mass density throughout its whole body, owing to the perfect balance of gravitational pressure and electrostatic repulsion, then its pressure is uniform throughout its whole body as contained within the bounding ionospherical electron shell. Is this statement true or false?" "If true, then is it not likely that the interior of the Sun has a temperature little different from that at its surface?" "In that case, how can we ever even begin to believe that the energy source which sustains the sun is of nuclear origin, unless we accept the possibility of cold fusion?" "If the statement is untrue then where is the flaw in the argument developed above?" "Ought we not to see this question discussed in textbooks on astrophysics?"
Now, let us digress to mention the so-called Neutron Star. The neutron has no electric charge. Hypothetically, therefore, if one could capture enough neutrons within a confined space, with no other matter present, then gravity could act unrestrained by electric potential and the neutrons would cluster into a very compact form having a mass density enormously greater than the 1.41 gm/cc of the sun. However, we have used that word 'if' and quite glibly presumed that the neutrons will not behave as we know they do in our experiments. We know from those experiments that they are unstable and have a mean lifetime of a few minutes, decaying to become a proton and shedding an electron. Question: "Would not that return us to the scenario of the hydrogen star already discussed?" "Does not that mean that a neutron star is simply a figment of imagination?"
Surely, there is something wrong with astrophysics if this kind of question is not properly addressed in the scientific literature. Now, I am not an astrophysicist but I found that my early writings, which concerned the electrodynamic nature of gravitation, were judged defective because they conflicted with certain cosmological assumptions. I was building my account of gravitation on the electromagnetic principles to which I had been led by my experimental research in magnetism on the laboratory test bench. I found that the mere suggestion that gravitation can be explained without building the argument on the doctrinaire principles of Einstein's theory of relativity was a sufficient basis for rejection. Yet the theory which emerged from my research even allowed the derivation of the value of the constant of gravitation G in terms of the electron's charge/mass ratio. [You will find the formula for G on page 115 of my book 'Physics Unified'].
It is really for this reason that I have, in these lectures, decided to attack the establishment position, rather than defend my own theory, though I would have been delighted if I had ever needed to defend what I have proposed. It has never been attacked. Astrophysicists and particle physicists have simply chosen to ignore my writings, even though I provide the bridging link between particle physics and cosmology by the unifying role played by the force of gravity.
Before I advance too far from what I have said above I must mention that, as we proceed, I shall be explaining why Einstein's theory of relativity, whether in its special or general form, is wrong. It is wrong on every count, but in Part II of my Web page on that subject I will direct these particular comments at the cosmologists who have chosen to ignore the observations of two astronomers of Villanova University in Pennsylvania. Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney proved Einstein wrong by drawing attention to the measured the rate of perihelion motion of the two stars forming the double star system DI Herculis. Einstein's theory required that their anomalous rate of advance of perihelion should be some 196 times faster than it is for planet Mercury. It was found to be only one seventh of the predicted amount for the classical and relativistic effects combined! Einstein's theory has, therefore, to be wrong! A small additional component was also required from Newtonian gravitational theory, owing to the astrophysicist's assumption that the gaseous plasma constituting a star can be dragged by gravitational action of the other star in a binary pair.
In the event, it was found that the observed rate of perihelion advance was so small as to rule out any prospect of Einstein's theory being of any relevance, but, surprisingly, the plasma drag was not in evidence either. Now, what might that prove? Well, if you have understood what I have described above concerning electric and gravitational potentials in stars being in balance, you will understand that the action between matter in two stars in a binary system will conform with the same principle. In other words, there can be no gravitational drag effect adding to the perihelion advance. You see, there can be no gravitational 'tide' effects if the star has a uniform mass density. In that context it reacts as if it were a homogeneous solid.
The Guinan and Maloney observations, as reported on p. 23 of the August 29, 1985 issue of New Scientist, therefore serve the dual purpose of proving Einstein's theory is wrong and also verifying my proposition that the mass density within a star is not concentrated into a non-uniform distribution by the force of gravitation. The importance of this to cosmological science cannot be overestimated. It bears upon that question of how a nuclear fusion reaction can be initiated to feed the star's energy output. It obliges one to consider the prospect of a cold fusion process or to look for other explanations for the stellar energy source. It should raise questions but where are those questions discussed in the science literature? Why do cosmologists waste time theorizing about Black Holes when they do not have the answers to the issues I am raising here?
To most physicists Maxwell's equations stand supreme because they withstood the onslaught of the revolution introduced by Einstein's theory. They are compliant to Lorentz transformation. Yet they lack an essential symmetry, a failing which was deceptive, in that it caused scientists to think about the so-called 'magnetic monopole', something that is also an illusion with no real foundation.
At this preliminary stage I will not use mathematics to show how the equations should be revised. It suffices to keep in mind what we can all witness as we watch waves ripple over the surface of water and the fact that electromagnetic waves are really no different so far as the energy factor is concerned. In an electromagnetic wave there are two energy forms. One is the electric potential energy, which rises and falls as the wave ripples along through empty space. The other is the energy of lateral motion we associate with those waves, namely the magnetic energy, which is really the electrodynamic component associated with that rise and fall of electric potential energy. Now, in the water analogy, the wave on the surface of water involves the rise and fall of water, which involves corresponding changes in the gravitational potential of that water. This is equivalent to the electric potential of the electromagnetic wave. The motion of the water, meaning the kinetic energy associated with that up and down movement, is equivalent to magnetic energy of the electromagnetic wave.
The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that it is Nature's way to provide that the propagation of waves in a real medium involves the harmonious exchange of energy as between the static and dynamic potential states. Throw a stone into a pool of water and the water displaced will mean a slight rise of the equilibrium level of water in the pool, but it will also set up a propagating wave or ripple which does not transfer water in the propagation direction, save for an oscillation over the range of half a wavelength. The way in which Maxwell's equations have been formulated implies, however, that the propagation of an electromagnetic wave requires, not the exchange of energy between the electric potential and electrodynamic states, but rather their increase and decrease together in time phase. This forces the energy to travel with the wave at its propagation velocity and leads to some rather bewildering problems when we consider wave interference. In short, Maxwell's equations do not represent a natural wave situation.
You may then say that this merely indicates that the vacuum as a medium which transports electromagnetic waves is not a real medium and that we can only base our theories on empirical evidence. If that evidence indicates the radiation of energy by a radio antenna, then the radio wave has to convey energy, notwithstanding what one might expect from the ripple on water analogy. However, bear with me as I pose a further question. How do we know that the electromagnetic waves we receive from remote galaxies really do transport the energy shed by the source stars and convey it towards us at the speed of light for thousands and, indeed, millions of years, without shedding any of that energy on route?
Could it not be that, just as we see when we throw a bucket of water into a pool, the initial effect is the deployment of that water as it spreads from its point of entry, but that the onward ripple, as an up and down oscillation of water already there in the pool, merely spreads to remote parts of the pool as a natural wave? The wave zone near the source is, on this basis, a forced wave having the form analogous to that of Maxwell's equations. May it not be that the electromagnetic wave initiated as a forced wave sheds its energy over an initial range and then travels on as a natural wave conveying a virtually negligible amount of the energy shed by the source?
Maxwell's equations need only slight revision, the mere inclusion of a mathematical operator j which signifies quadrature time phasing, and they would then comply with the natural wave mode as well as still satisfying the Lorentz transformations. However, we would then have scope for understanding how a star can radiate energy to set up electromagnetic waves which propagate over distances measured in light years, whilst the bulk of the energy shed to set up those waves is dispersed to become matter whilst still within the grasp of the star's gravity field. It would thereby return to the star and sustain its mass-energy content. Such a possibility would surely ease the cosmologist's problems of understanding how a star's energy radiation is sustained.
Of course, as ever, I expect the astrophysicist to view this as mere speculation and so reject what I propose, but for those interested in the prospect of regeneration of energy and the theory of radio communication I invite close scrutiny of the experimental research I shall be reporting in these Web pages. This concerns the findings of Dave Gieskieng of Arvada, Colorado using special antennae specially designed to transmit and receive natural electromagnetic waves.