return to homepage
return to updates
at the center of the Sun
by Miles Mathis
Despite the intentionally provocative title, this paper is not about an actual hole at the center of the Sun. It is about a hole at the center of Solar theory. If you read all the current material on the formation of a star, you soon realize there is a problem. We are told that stars exist by fusion, turning hydrogen to helium (in most cases) to create their energy. Fair enough. Since fusion requires high pressures and temperatures, we are told that stars exhibit such pressures and temperatures. That is easy to believe, since the Sun looks plenty hot. Problem is, we are told the current heat is generated by fusion, and we need the heat before the fusion. We are told that gravitational collapse creates high pressures, which created the necessary temperatures, and that is also easy to believe. However, we need a mechanism for that creation of high temperature from collapse, and as it is, we don't really have one. We can see that large celestial bodies become stars and small ones don't, so we are told that gravity starts the process. The star collapses and this creates heat and the heat creates the fusion.
But without more theory, that doesn't really fly. Why? Because the Sun isn't dense. Stars aren't generally dense. You would expect something that had collapsed to be very dense. But the Sun's average density is ¼ that of the Earth's. We are told that the Sun's core (where fusion takes place) has a density 150 times that of water, but even Wikipedia admits that is just a model. It turns out that it is a curious model, because in order to give the core that much density, the model gives the other 4/5's of the Sun a density of almost nothing. Even the lower photosphere, the level just above the core, is given a density of only 2 x 10- 4kg/m3. That's 6,000 times less dense than the Earth's atmosphere. I would say that is grossly counter-intuitive.
It is illogical as well, since a gravitational collapse could hardly work that way. Let us say that the core is the real body, and the other 4/5's of the Sun is like an atmosphere. That is how the current Sun is sold to us, in the literature. Even then, the gravity of the core would have to act on the atmosphere more strongly than that, creating more atmospheric pressure and therefore more density. The core of the Sun is much larger and denser than the Earth, and yet the Earth's gravity creates a density in its own atmosphere of about 1.2kg/m3, some 10,000 times more density than the Sun's photosphere as a whole.
I will be told that the energy of the fusion percolating up counteracts the gravity of the core acting on the rest of the Sun, but if mainstream physicists propose that, they are already admitting a unified field. I hardly think they want to do that, because that would be admitting I am right. If they are going to do that, I can stop this paper now. What I mean is, they can't propose that, because they have no mechanism for it. According to current theory, you can't turn off or cancel gravity, not by an E/M field, and especially not by an ion field. Gravity is gravity, and it doesn't matter how many ions or photons are flying up through the field. Niether Einstein nor Newton gives them any mechanism to cancel gravity, and QM and QED don't either. Therefore, this low density photosphere they are proposing is unsupported by current fields, to say the least.
Another problem is that a density of 150 times that of water is still not very high. Platinum at room temperature is 1/7th that dense. We can actually heat and pressurize platinum to densities nearing that, so it isn't that extraordinary.
All the theorists have really done is rig the density numbers to support their theories. They think to themselves, "What is the lowest density most people will buy for the rest of the Sun? We can't get it too low or people might start asking questions." Then they give the rest of the density to the core, and hope that density will impress you. But the fact is, an average density of 1.4 for the Sun isn't impressive no matter how you slice it. Without a whole lot more theory, you have to be really negligent to accept that that sort of density can start fusion, by itself.
Now, the electrical Sun people will say, "Right, so get rid of fusion altogether!" But I happen to think we have some pretty strong evidence for fusion. Neither the mainstream fusion theorists nor the electrical Sun people can explain all the phenomena we see, so I would like to combine them both. If we have both, we can explain more of the data. So I would like to propose that they are both right. All of my work on the charge field tells me that we do have fusion (see below for immediate proof), but we need charge and E/M effects to get it started. In other words, a star isn't born in a gravitational collapse, it is born in a unified field "collapse," where the charge field undergoes changes like the rest of the field.
This helps greatly in the current problem, because I have shown that the charge field has a mass 19 times that of baryonic matter. Every proton is recyling a photon field that outweighs it by 19 times. So when you add the charge field to any problem, you get a greatly multiplied effect. When you add pressure to any mass, you also add pressure to the charge field. When you squeeze the protons in hydrogen, you aren't just squeezing the protons, you are squeezing the billions of photons.
We should have known this decades ago, since we have known for quite a while that the Sun is a plasma. A plasma is an electromagnetic entity. It cannot be explained with gravity. To deflect this obvious reading of the facts, we are told that the plasma is created by the fusion process, but we have plasmas between here and the Moon, caused by the local charge and E/M fields. It doesn't require fusion to create plasmas, it only requires lots of ions in a charge field. It is not fusion that created the plasma in the Sun, it is the dense plasma that created the possibility of fusion. Once again, current theory is upside down.
In short, because the Sun was NOT dense, but contained a large amount of matter, it coalesced into a very large sphere that was able to recycle very large amounts of charge. You don't want too much density in a star, because the radius is more important than the density. The bigger radius gives you more angular momentum, which allows you to recycle more charge, which allows for a hotter plasma. All this charge passing through the sphere created a hot plasma, and the hot plasma allowed for the beginning of fusion. In this way, we see that much of the heat of the Sun predated fusion. And in this way, we see that the electrical Sun people are right. A good portion of the current heat of the Sun is still caused by the charge passing through the Sun. Fusion only adds to this heat. We can now (with my theory) even calculate the percentages of heat that come from fusion and from charge—see below for the math.
I will be asked why I am allowed to propose this when the mainstream theorists aren't. Two reasons: 1) I have the fields to justify it, since I have unified gravity and charge. 2) Even though I have a unified field, and can show how charge works in the opposite direction to gravity, I am still not using my unified field here to cancel gravity. I think current theory has the densities in the Sun all wrong, so I don't think we need to explain why the photosphere is so tenuous. There is no reason the core has to have all the density, so we can give more density to the rest of the Sun. Therefore there is no density split to explain. Fusion doesn't cancel the gravitational effects of the core upon the photosphere, so I don't have to explain how it does.
Concerning 1), I can propose the Sun as a unified field beast, because I have a unified field. Mainstream physics doesn't have a unified field, so they can't borrow any of this from me, in any part, without being grossly inconsistent. They have told us for 300 years that the celestial field, including the Solar field, was a gravity field only. So they cannot start slipping in E/M field assumptions here to suit themselves. If they want to browbeat anyone who so much as whispers "ether", fine, but after they have done that for decades, they cannot prance in later and begin telling us E/M effects in the Sun affect the gravity field of the Sun. If E/M or quantum effects cause changes in the gravity field, they have to show a mechanism and a field math.
[This also applies to black holes, of course, which are supposed to be collapsed superstars. The big theorists like Hawking and Penrose propose quantum effects in black holes almost daily, and quantum effects are E/M effects. Why does nobody ever ask them how E/M effects enter the field equations, which are gravitational equations, not quantum or E/M equations? When someone like me proposes that the field includes E/M, I am shouted down with a chorus of derision, told that there is no room in the field equations for any corrections. When someone like me proposes that Relativity is wrong by 4%, I am shouted down with a chorus of derision, told that there is no room in the field equations for any corrections. They are already correct to within a billionth of a nanometer or something, I am assured. But then Hawking and Penrose and all the other big names propose quantum effects in black holes, and no one bothers to tell them that there is no room in the field equations for E/M. Quantum effects are E/M effects, and if there is no E/M in the celestial field equations, Hawking and Penrose can't propose quantum effects to fill mathematical holes!]
I can propose E/M and quantum effects in the Sun all day, if I like, since I have shown exactly where the charge field fits into Newton's field equation (and therefore into Einstein's field equations). When I propose the one field affecting the other, as when the E/M field affects the gravity field, I have equations and theory that show how it is done. I have a coherent math, a coherent field, and a coherent theory. All current theorists have is wild assertions, based on wishful thinking and a near-infinite disregard for the intelligence of their audience. They feel free to propose quantum effects to fill all the gaps in their models, even though they known darn well that they don't have a unified field. If they have no room in their "perfect" field equations for corrections, then where do they fit in these quantum effects? The readers of these gentlemen appear to believe that quantum effects are so small they don't have to be fit into the field equations, but that is false. Quantum effects that were so small they didn't affect the field equations would be too small to affect the bodies in the field. Current theorists want to propose quantum effects that affect real bodies but that don't affect the math or the field. We must suppose it is another example of virtual forces, whereby ghosts in the field can cause real motions.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a reader recently. He pointed out that engineers love my papers, but for physicists they are "unmentionable." I had to laugh, since I am about the furthest thing from an engineer imaginable. I am not a practical person, I don't have a lab, I do very few experiments, and I am not too fond of machines. I simply like solving problems. I am definitely a theorist. But this separation of engineers and physicists by my reader made me pause. Engineers like my papers because they are mechanical. Physicists dislike them for the same reason. Odd, don't you think, that physics has divorced itself from mechanics, when they used to be synonymous. It is somewhat like the 19th century separation of doctors and surgeons. Doctors had much more prestige then, because surgeons used their hands. Surgeons were almost blue-collar! In the same way, anyone who concerns himself with mechanics is now seen as a lowbrow. A mechanic is little better than a grease monkey. This is because math has taken over physics, and the math has separated from the mechanics. The mathematician keeps his hands clean of physical problems (see my comments on Pauli in my paper "The Einstein-Bohr Letters"). He considers himself more pure and elevated. But like the 19th century doctor, he is in the grip of an illusion, an illusion fed by careerism and ego. Separating the math from the mechanics was not a move toward purity, it was a move toward magic. Once the equations have become divorced from the motions, anything is possible. That is not purity, it is mischief. We see this all the time now in the new math of new physics. Everything is now explained in terms of a virtual field or some symmetry breaking. But both ideas are more magic than anything else. They are neither mechanical nor physical.
If physicists want to be free to propose anything they like, they should stop calling themselves physicists and quit calling the field physics. After all, the word "physics" should have a sour taste for these gentlemen and women who have climbed out above all physical limitations. For them, the physical is just that residue of the math left after decoherence, a nasty by-product like a sloughed off snake's skin. One wing of science (and pre-science) has always wanted to cast off the physical, and that wing has long been in control. It would never admit it, but science actually shares this hatred of the physical with many of the religious people it debates. A prominent form of Christianity has always had a distaste for the physical, and all to do with the body. The same can be said for Islam, Judaism, Zen, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In the same way and for the very same reasons, new physicists desire to leave the physical behind them. Religious people want to climb out into some realm of pure consciousness, and mathematicians do, too. The religious people flee the filth associated with the body, and the mathematicians flee the filth associated with mechanics. Mechanics is the math of real bodies, and current mathematicians have an instinctive revulsion in the presence of real bodies, be they human or celestial. They can't even stand to diagram them or visualize them, telling you that such visualizations only get in the way of the math.
It is this sort of illusory or delusional math that allows these people to propose a lot of contradictory things without noticing how contradictory they are. When your terms are all just floating in your head, you can't see the physical contradictions. When physics is based on computer models, no one is there to spot contradictions. Computers cannot spot theoretical contradictions. There is no program that alerts you when you have just grossly contradicted yourself (although there should be—it would make a mint and would always be beeping). Only when you see physics as real physical bodies, bashing into one another with cruel and filthy forces, will you see the contradictions. It is not we "engineers" who should be forced to do math without asking mechanical questions, it is these faux-physicists who should be forced to draw pictures, and to diagram them. They should be strapped to their chairs and forced for months to do nothing but label kinematic diagrams with variables, and to write simple equations for those variables. They should be strapped to giant orreries, where they can see and feel for themselves what forces and collisions really are. They should be thrown back into the mudpits of grade school with bags of marbles, where they can be reminded what the world really is. It isn't a computer model. It isn't a virtual field of wishes and manufactured symmetries. It is a hard and fast realspace of mechanics, where the bodies around you won't put up with fake equations.
Now, let us return to the problem at hand. Wikipedia gives us a few "present anomalies" of the Sun, which include the current dimming of the Sun, the loss of ½ the magnetic field, the loss of 3% of the Solar Wind, and the fall in sunspot activity. Of course the Wiki-police don't like these anomalies and are trying to take them down. They tell us they are "outdated," as if last year's data can immediately be jettisoned as no longer valid. They want to take them down because none of these can be explained by gravity or fusion. The Sun has not changed its size or mass, the Solar System has not lost or gained any mass, and so on. The only way to explain all these linked phenomena is with the charge field. The Sun is currently recycling less charge than usual because it is receiving less charge from outside the Solar System. Remember, our entire system is travelling through the galaxy at high speed (250km/s), in an outer arm. Well, the galaxy is not homogeneous: it has areas of higher charge and lower charge. These fluctuations cause fluctuations in the Sun.
Put simply, our system is not a closed system. We know it is not receiving great inputs of normal mass from anywhere, so it must be receiving fluctuations in charge. But this of course implies that the Sun is not running on fusion alone. It is running on charge. When the charge in drops, all the outputs of the Sun drop.
These "present anomalies" could not be more clear in what they are telling us. The fluctuations are huge, way too large to be caused by “quantum effects” or other jerry-rigged explanations. The Sun is fed from the ambient charge field, which is what the electrical universe people have been telling us for years. And since that is so, the current (interpretations of the) field equations cannot be correct. We simply HAVE to include charge in the field equations. The only way to include these huge corrections in our “successful” field equations is to do it as I have done it. Since I have shown that the charge field already exists in the current field equations, they don't have to be completely rewritten. They only have to be re-expanded and re-interpreted, to show which part of the old field is charge and which part is mass. Or, to say it another way, which part is baryonic and which part is photonic.
Although we cannot explain the current anomalies with fusion alone, we cannot explain them with charge alone either. The anomalies are proof of fusion as well. Why? Because if the Sun were based on E/M or charge alone, these passes through lesser charge would be catastrophic for us. Let us say the Sun is passing through a charge field that is much less than normal, as it apparently is. All the other outputs would have to drop by large amounts as well. The Sun couldn't lose all that charge and keep most of its light and heat. The Sun has lost only .02% of its light, according to the researchers, and 13% of its temperature. But if the Sun were electrical only, a big drop in charge would cause the immediate death of us all. We would immediately freeze. If the heat followed the magnetism, for instance, we would have lost half our heat.
To have kept its heat, the Sun must be storing energy. How is it doing that? Well, there are various answers to that, and the question is far from being decided, but an easy answer is that the Sun doesn't have to store energy to make it through these down times. Once fusion has started, it won't stop unless the temperatures in the Sun drop below a certain level. So fusion continues, even when charge inputs drop considerably.
From the numbers above, we can now calculate how much of the Sun's energy comes from fusion and how much from charge. If we take the numbers from Wikipedia as correct, we find that "Its magnetic field is at less than half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago." Well, that doesn't make any sense. You can't compare one minimum to another. They must mean it is at half strength compared to some maximum. But it doesn't matter, since the magnetism won't tell us anything here anyway. The charge field we are passing through may be less magnetic than normal, but still have the same charge density. Magnetism just tells us how the photons are spinning, not how many of them there are. So we would be better looking at other numbers. The temperature would appear to be an important number, but any analysis shows that temperature isn't a good indication of total energy output or of charge either. Temperature must be a function of both charge and fusion, so it won't help us isolate either one. And it won't follow total energy, since fusion will likely absorb more of the total temperature as the charge diminishes.
Density is probably the primary indicator here, since density fluctuation would most likely be a straight function of charge pressure. Since charge is 95% of the field, density should follow charge to within 5%. Wiki tells us the density of the Sun has dropped 20% in the last two decades, so the charge field has dropped about 20% in that time.
Of course those are just rough numbers, to show you the math. There is no indication that the Sun was at an all time high 20 years ago, and we need to calculate against a strong maximum to get a good number, of course.
What would be the best indicator of total energy output? Of the numbers at Wiki, I would choose the speed of the Solar Wind. The Solar Wind must be driven by both the output of fusion as well as by the recycled charge, so it is a fair indicator of the total field. The Wind has dropped by 3%, we are told, and if that is so, we can can calculate what percentages of energy output are caused by fusion and charge. If a 20% drop in charge causes a 3% drop in total output, then by this equation
(1 – x) + .8x = .97
we can find the fraction that goes to charge, which is 15%. That leaves 85% of the energy of the Sun produced by fusion. That makes sense, because it explains why all this loss of charge energy doesn't cause the Earth to freeze over like Neptune. The Solar System would have to pass through a very large pocket of low charge to affect fusion, since it would take the Sun quite a while to cool. In this way, fusion is the battery that stores energy: it is heat that takes time to dissipate. Charge isn't stored, but heat is. According to the equations we just ran, the Sun requires only 15% of its total energy to initiate fusion. The Sun has cooled by 13%, but it would have to cool by about 85% for fusion to cease. And since fusion creates 85% of the current energy anyway, the Sun wouldn't stop fusing even if we travelled through a large patch of zero charge. The charge would have to be turned off for a long time for the Sun to cool below 15% of its current energy.
By the way, this also explains charge reversals, including the magnetic reversal we are currently experiencing. These pockets of charge are made up of both photons and anti-photons, in varying amounts. Anti-photons are just spinning the opposite direction of photons, and they cancel the spin of photons in a charge field, cancelling the magnetic field. If the area of charge we are travelling through had equal amounts of each, the area would be non-magnetic, like Venus. But, like Venus, it would still have the same amount of charge and the same amount of electricity. This explains the big variances in the magnetic field of the Sun, without equal variances in other variables. We are passing through areas with more or less anti-photons. But currently we are not only passing through an area with more anti-photons, as a fraction of the whole. No, we are passing through an area with more anti-photons than photons. If we were passing through a photon field before, we are passing through an anti-photon field now. In other words, the average spin on the photons has changed, changing not only the strength of the field lines, but the direction of the field lines. The poles of the Earth, which are just indicators of these field lines, must move with the field lines.
To say it a third way, the E/M field in and around the Earth is caused by the Earth taking in these photons or anti-photons at the poles and emitting them more heavily near the equator. As the photons go, the ions go, pushed along like a stream. But if the intake of photons suddenly switches to an intake of anti-photons, the spins in and the spins out interfere. Many spins are cancelled, and the magnetism drops for a while. On the Wiki page for "geomagnetic reversal", we find this,
These events often involve an extended decline in field strength followed by a rapid recovery after the new orientation has been established.
Current theory can't tell you why that is, but I just did. Eventually the old photons will be used up and the Earth's field will match the ambient field. The field has gone from photonic to anti-photonic. Since photons and anti-photons are just upside down relative to one another, the field must go upside down, too. The Earth does not flip, only the field flips, and all this means is that the spins on the photons have reversed. Since anti-photons are not dark or evil or anything else, this spin and magnetic reversal is not any sort of catastrophe. Scientists admit that the Earth has gone through pole reversals many times without extinctions or inundations or anything else. It is predicted that the speed of the reversal may entail some big physical changes, but I have nothing to say about that. I am not a geophysicist. All I know is that anti-photons, like other anti-matter, are nothing to be afraid of. We live with them all the time. Anti-photons are all around you, and always have been. They are not cancerous, radioactive, or anything else. Anti-matter is just another form of matter. The pole reversal has already begun, and you have felt nothing. That is probably what you can expect to continue to feel.
Conclusion: Since the celestial field equations have contained charge from the beginning (since Newton, anyway), we are free to use charge to explain phenomena. And since the galactic core must be supplying the Solar System with large amounts of charge, we are free to use that fact to explain phenomena. Once we admit that the Solar System is not a closed system, and not a gravity-only system, most of the old problems evaporate. We then have a mechanism to solve centuries' worth of intractable questions. This is just one of them.
The Sun is not only a fusion reactor. It is both a fusion reactor and a charge synapse. Although a majority of its energy currently comes from fusion, a large percentage (about 15%) still comes from the recycling of charge coming from the galactic core. It also required the charge input to initiate the fusion sequence billions of years ago. It is this dual role of the Sun that explains all the “present anomalies” listed at Wikipedia, and hundreds of others not listed there.
My charge field has allowed me to solve many old problems quickly and easily, with clear and simple math, and I will use the findings of this paper to solve another one. You can now link to my new paper on the Milankovitch cycle and the ice age question, where I show the real cause of long-term cycles.
This current paper extends an earlier paper on charge recyling, which uses my charge theory to calculate the distance of magnetopause of the Earth and Venus from first postulates.