Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Relativity Theory

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors


KRONOS Vol V, No. 1

The Not So Stable Sun


Copyright © 1978,1979 by Earl R. Milton

When we look at the Sun optically, we see an opaque sphere of light, the photosphere. The photosphere emits a continuum of light whose intensity profile plotted against frequency resembles the emission of a black body of temperature 6270 K.(1) This temperature is sufficient to boil the most refractory element, tungsten.(2) The origin of this emission is attributed to high velocity free electrons in transition from one path to another as the electrons collide with atoms or ions of the photospheric gas.(3)

Modeling of the photosphere creates problems for astronomers who believe that energy is generated at the center of the Sun. The photosphere is opaque, hence energy must be convected from the interior through the photospheric layer. The granular appearance of the photosphere is taken as evidence that non-stationary convective cells exist in the photosphere. Juergens has argued persuasively that this explanation is incorrect if we consider the physical nature of the solar gas and the convection process.(4) A convective model of the photosphere also fails on thermal grounds. If energy is generated in the Sun's interior, the region beneath the photosphere must have an ever increasing temperature with depth. Such a temperature gradient is characteristic of the flow of energy by radiative transfer.(5) The region above the photosphere is observable, and it exhibits temperatures increasing with height, beginning immediately above the photosphere and continuing through the lower corona.(6) Thus the photosphere is supposedly bounded by much hotter gas layers. How does it maintain its low temperature while acting as the transfer medium for the energy? To some extent the gas above the photosphere is strongly heated by the solar emission, yet the photosphere, whose fraction of the solar mass seemingly is less than 10^-10, is not heated while transmitting 4 x 1026 watts.(7)

Today, the source of stellar energy is believed to be thermonuclear fusion. According to modern models, stars are self-gravitating spheres of hydrogen atoms.(8) In contracting to size from something larger, a new star heats its hydrogen, which becomes opaque. To remain stable, the gas gravitates into layers of ever increasing density and temperature inward from the star's surface to its center. On the assumption that the extremely hot gas behaves as an ideal gas, the gas pressure (P) can be related to the composition, density (p), and temperature (T) at each point

P = k/m r T

where k = the Boltzmann constant, and m = mean mass per particle of gas.

Several authors have modeled the interior of the Sun, for which they estimate a central temperature of the order of thirteen million degrees.(9) Fausto Perri and A.G.W. Cameron concluded that a collapsing star could not ignite its thermonuclear processes at a central density as low as that calculated for the present-day Sun. They claim that the original Sun would have required a central density about one hundred times higher than that to initiate the thermonuclear process and to redistribute solar material into the presently calculated distribution. Therefore the very ignition of a collapsing cloud of the Sun's present mass into a thermonuclear star is suspect.(10)

If the temperature at the Sun's center is thirteen million degrees, the protons repel one another electrically and rebound before their nuclear forces can contact to bind them together.(11) However, quantum-mechanical tunneling permits fusion when the colliding protons can produce a compound nucleus with no relative angular momentum; this occurs for only a minuscule fraction of the collisions.(12) The thermonuclear processes supposedly occurring within the Sun do so under conditions well beyond laboratory experience.(13) Predictive models involve approximations unjustified by anything except the need for mathematical simplicity. Experimental verification is needed for certain thermonuclear reactions which astrophysicists attribute to the Sun.(14) Some of the missing data may never be measurable under laboratory conditions.(15) Without them, proof that fusion occurs at the solar center is impossible. Undaunted, most theorists, seeing no alternative to fusion, state that since the nuclear Sun did ignite somehow it must be hot enough within the Sun to allow hydrogen atoms to fuse.

In simple terms, the fusion process involves

4H+ -> He++ + 2e+ + 2n + 2g

where: e+ = positron; n = neutrino; g = photon. The positrons are annihilated upon collision with electrons, liberating more photons:

2e+ + 2e- > 4Y

The net reaction converts four protons plus two electrons into one helium nucleus (an alpha particle), two neutrinos, and six photons. The neutrinos escape the Sun and the Solar System immediately, traveling through both space and matter at the speed of light, without giving up their energy.(16) Sixty percent of the energy liberated by the hydrogen-to-helium fusion escapes with the neutrinos.(17) In contrast, the photons are absorbed by the matter within the Sun. En route to the photosphere the photons lose energy as they are created, absorbed, recreated, and reabsorbed countless times. It is believed that the Sun's interior contains enough energy, provided by the escaping photons, to allow it to radiate photons for about two million years after fusion stops.(18) So long as thermonuclear fusion occurs within the Sun, neutrinos should be emitted. The expected flux of solar neutrinos is not detected at the Earth.(19) This surprising negative result has spawned speculation about a temporary suspension of the thermonuclear "fires" of the Sun's interior.(20)

The thermonuclear model requires a solar interior gradually increasing in density toward the center. Detection of a 160-minute oscillation in the Sun's light output and in some of its magnetic phenomena has been taken as evidence of the existence of global oscillation of the solar gas. This oscillation has been correlated with the 187-minute period expected for a free-body oscillation of a Sun with homogeneous density.(21) Thus with no unambiguous evidence of solar neutrinos and every evidence of an isodense Sun, the thermonuclear source theory for solar energy is seriously jeopardized!

The solar interior fails each of the three tests applied to it; photospheric convection, neutrino detection rates, and bulk-oscillation period do not match prediction. My conclusion is that the Sun is not a thermonuclear system.

Examination of the Sun's observable exterior might supply evidence for an alternative source for the Sun's energy. The solar atmosphere is the obvious place to begin.

Applying theory to the observed characteristics of the solar atmosphere, we find more surprises. On theory, the solar atmosphere would be expected to be only two to three km thick.(22) However, we find appreciable atmosphere extending at least two solar radii (1.4 Gigameters*) upward. This is observed despite the high value calculated for the Sun's "surface gravity" at the visible limb.(23) The photospheric temperature is of the order of 6000 K, about twenty times Earth's surface temperature. The mass of the solar atmosphere is 10^16 tonnes,** 1.9 times Earth's atmospheric mass.(24)

[Footnote: * 1 Gigameter = 1 million kilometers.]

[Footnote: ** 1 tonne (metric ton) = one thousand kilograms.]

At the base of the atmosphere, "cooler" gases absorb energy from the continuum of outflowing solar light. Over twenty-seven thousand dark spectral lines remove about nine percent of the energy from sunlight. In absorption, sixty-eight of the ninety-two natural chemical elements are observed. No physical model has ever been devised to explain even the gross characteristics of this (Fraunhofer) spectrum .(25)

Above the photosphere the reddish-coloured transparent chromosphere is observed. Here, the re-emission of some of the light removed by the Fraunhofer absorption is observed (for the more intense lines) during solar eclipses.(26) In the chromosphere, temperature apparently rises sharply with altitude [see Table I] .

Table I
Altitude Range
x 1000 km
Temperature Range
x 1000 K
0-5 4.4- 13
5 - 10 13 - 400
10 - 15 400 - 2000
Source: Allen, Astrophysical Quantities, item 83, p.174 (Reference No.1).

Altitudes above the base of the chromosphere.

The inner chromosphere is a highly dynamic forest of jets called spicules. The spicules propagate upward with velocities of the order of twenty-five kilometers per second. At any moment, about one percent of the solar area is covered by spicules, which lie mainly along the super-granule boundaries.(27)

Above the chromosphere is the corona. The base of the corona may be only 4000 kilometers above the photosphere. The chromospheric features can extend upward as much as 21,000 km on occasion.

The lower corona, called the "K corona," shows a faint, continous, emission spectrum, with no absorption lines. The profile of its intensity plotted against wavelength resembles that of the photosphere. This emission is attributed to light scattered by highly energetic electrons. These electrons are calculated to be moving as if the corona's temperature is one to two million degrees Kelvin. The electrons of the corona are detected by radio telescopes at wavelengths between I and 20 centimeters.

Farther from the Sun, the "F corona" is observed. Here Fraunhofer absorption is detected, along with emission from highly ionized atoms. The absorption has been explained as sunlight scattered by dust particles. The emission lines indicate the presence of a very hot, tenuous gas in the upper corona.(28) The F corona is observed at radio wavelengths exceeding 50 cm.

Outbursts are common in the outer corona when the Sun is active with sunspots.(29) These outbursts are frequent and show a twenty seven-day periodicity. The shape of the corona varies over the solar cycle. Streamers of coronal matter extend deeply into space when the Sun's activity is high.(30)

The corona behaves like an expanding gas, too hot to be bound by gravity to the Sun. Protons leave the Sun continually at velocities in excess of one hundred kilometers per second.(31) The corona loses 67,000 tonnes of gas per second. This gas constitutes the solar wind, which flows outward through the Solar System to be dissipated in interstellar space.

Table 2
Distance from Sun
R = 0.7 Gm
Mean Proton Velocity
30 R 300 [32]
200 R 400 [33]
800 R 410 [34]
Distances measured from the Sun's center.

The observation that the solar wind accelerates after leaving the Sun has befuddled astrophysicists because evaporated protons ought to be retarded by the Sun's gravity as they move outward [see Table 2] . At the Earth's distance from the Sun (150 Gm), the solar-wind density is 5 protons per cubic centimeter.(35) This represents an electrical current of 4 x 10-7 amperes per square meter. If the solar wind flows only in the disc of the planetary system, Juergens has calculated the current of the Sun to be of the order of 1015 amperes! (36) This current represents a loss of protons from the Sun, or a gain of negative charge by the Sun;(37) the electric current, or the rate at which the Sun gains charge, is diminished if not all the flowing protons escape the Sun.

While protons flow away from the Sun, electrons do not. In 1942, when the source of the corona's emission lines was shown by B. Edlen to be a very hot gas, speculation was widespread that the corona ought to evaporate electrons.(38) The evidence indicates the reverse is true. Though electrons found in the solar wind have temperatures comparable with the protons, the electron velocities are isotropic, whereas the protons drift away from the Sun, that is to say the protons flow through a matrix of "stationary" electrons.(39)

Because an electrical current seems to be flowing away from the Sun, Juergens has proposed that the Sun is powered from the outside.(40) He connects the Sun to the galaxy via an electric discharge with a driving potential of the order of 10 Gigavolts. In the discharge, solar-wind protons move from the Sun to the galaxy, and small numbers of very energetic cosmic electrons flow from the galaxy to the Sun. These electrons release their energy at the photosphere and power the Sun.

Incoming cosmic-ray protons, which bombard both the Earth and the Sun from every direction, represent the spent current from stars which liberate more energy than the Sun.(41) Such stars have luminosities of up to sixty thousand times that of the Sun, and have stellar winds of higher velocity and quantity than the "proton wind" from the Sun.(42) Since cosmic rays with energies above 25 Gigavolts are not modulated by solar activity, this threshold allows a good guess for the Sun's cathode drop relative to the galaxy.(43) Cosmic rays of lesser energy are diminished in number when solar activity is highest,(44)

As I visualize the electric Sun, the cosmic space within which the Solar System is embedded possesses a net negative charge per unit relative to the Sun's charge per unit.(45) As the Sun "burns", it acquires increasing negative charge. The Sun's radiative lifetime will extend until the solar charge density equals that of its galactic surroundings.

Juergens has noted that solar surface phenomena are consistent with the photosphere being the anode of an electrical discharge in a system where the anode surface is too small to collect the current.(46) The granular structure of the photosphere results from plasma tufts forming above the anode surface to correct the deficiency through a more intense mode of anode activity. These nodules of secondary solar plasma are detached from the solar anode itself, which lies below the photosphere. The anode tufts consisting of very luminous plasma are generated, emitting ions and collecting electrons [see Figure I].

[*!* Image] FIGURE 1. ELECTRIC SUN after Juergens. [Labels: cosmic electrons; solar wind; Primary Solar Plasma (Corona); bulk gas flow; Spicule; Secondary Solar Plasma Photosphere; Double Plasma Sheath (Chromosphere); Single Plasma Sheath; Solar Anode;]

[*!* Image] FIGURE 2. ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SPECTRUM. [Labels: Photosphere 4x1026 watts; Chromosphere; Atmosphere 1020 watts; Corona; Fraunhofer Absorption; Metal Emission Ca, Mg; Balmer Hydrogen Emission; Helium, calcium ion Emission. Lyman Hydrogen Emission; Spicules; Highly Ionized Atom Emission; Fe VIII-XIV; Si VII-XII; Mg VIII-X; Ne VIII-IX; S VIII-XII; Mg Mg II Ni Ti CH H Fe Fe II Ca Ca II; electron numbers ~ 1018/m3; % ions]

The anode tufts that make up the photosphere are separated from the primary plasma (corona and solar wind) through an isolating plasma sheath (the solar chromosphere). Both the photosphere and the corona are highly conducting plasmas, but at different potentials. Above the photosphere, but below the corona, ascending ions enter a region where a strong electrical field exists, bridging the difference in potential between the primary plasma above and the secondary plasma below. Because of collisions the electric-wind effect both the ions and the neutral gas increase their outward velocities and decrease their sideward motions. In this plasma sheath we find both the lowest apparent temperature on the Sun and the region of rapid heating where the atmospheric gases suddenly acquire temperatures of millions of degrees. As Juergens points out, in a sheath the concept of temperature is meaningless, so that temperature related observations of all kinds are futile!(47) Near the bottom of this sheath we see the Fraunhofer absorption; higher up we see emissions from hydrogen and ionized helium and calcium [see Figure 2].

In order to maintain a stable sheath between the photosphere and the corona, a great many electrons must pass downward through the sheath for each ion which passes upward.(48) The solar gas shows an increasing percentage of ionized-to-neutral atoms with altitude. Some of the rising neutral atoms become ionized by collision; some fall back to the solar surface. The rising ions ascend into the corona, where they become the solar wind. The descending gas flows back to the Sun between the granules in these channels the electrical field is such that ions straying out from the sides of the photospheric tufts flow sunward, and hence the electrons flow outward. The presence of these channels is critical to the maintenance of the solar discharge. The solar gas must provide sufficient electrons to sustain the sheath between the two plasma regions. Here we have an explanation for the spicules, huge fountains which spit electrons high into the corona.(49)

The electric and magnetic features of disturbances occurring above the Sun's photosphere have long been recognized, but the connection of the solar atmospheric phenomena to the energy-generating process of the Sun is not generally recognized.

In the first decade of the twentieth century, Charles Poor published a series of papers on the figure of the Sun.(50) He concluded that the Sun's shape was non-spherical and variable, albeit the differences between the polar and equatorial radii were probably not more than 0".25.(51) The ratio between the Sun's polar and equatorial radii is variable, with a period of variability following that of the sunspots. As the sunspot number decreases, the equatorial radius of the Sun decreases relative to the polar radius. As the sunspot number increases, the equatorial radius grows relative to the polar radius. The mean size of the Sun shows a small increase as sunspot activity increases.

Poor notes that, on the average, the equatorial diameter exceeds the polar diameter (oblate body), but at times the reverse is true (the Sun becomes a prolate body). His data give an amplitude for the variation of the Sun's shape of 0".1; the difference between most oblate and most prolate figure was 0".5. Less certain was a shorter variation of the Sun's shape with a possible period of twenty-eight days. This variation, if real, might indicate a deformation of the Sun's equator.

In 1966 Dicke reported that the Sun was oblate by five parts in one hundred thousand. His observations were made two years after sunspot minimum. The Sun's shape at a comparable time in Poor's series of observations was aspheric by two parts in one hundred thousand. The discrepancy between the degrees of oblateness measured seventy-four years apart is understandable, since solar cycles vary greatly in activity. Both found that the Sun was oblate at comparable times in different cycles.

Hence, it would seem as if a case might be made relating the size and shape of the Sun to its activity.

Since 1967 the Sun has increased its rotation at the equator by about five percent.(52) This spin-up has increased the equatorial velocity by 400 kilometers per second. Solar rotation in the past has been computed from old drawings by Scheiner and Hevelius made in the seventeenth century.(53) Early in that century (1625-6), the rotation of the Sun's equator was comparable to the pre-1967 rotation. In 1642-4, at the onset of several decades when few sunspots were seen the Maunder minimum the Sun's rotation deviated from the modern norm. The synodic rotation calculated for the Sun's equatorial region was 25.9 days, faster than the modern value by one day. The variation of rotation with solar latitude increased by a factor of three.(54) In their paper, John Eddy et al.(53) note that the gradual decline of sunspots from January 1625 through June 1626 parallels the decline noted in this century in 1974 and 1975. Differential rotation of the Sun was comparable in these two eras. Their conclusion: faster equatorial rotation accompanies lower sunspot activity.

Coronal changes also seem to follow the solar cycle; the more active the Sun, the less rigid the rotation of the corona.(55) Beckers reports that Foukal found solar plasma to rotate faster with increased magnetic field strength outside the sunspots.(56) Beckers found that the sunspots move faster than the surrounding solar plasma.

Attempts have been made to link the positions of the planets with the propagation of short-wave radio signals on the Earth, and with the levels of solar activity. Wood's data show that repetition of sunspot cycle intensity occurs every 170 to 180 years, a period he correlated with tides raised on the Sun by the action of the planets.(57) Nelson noted that severe radio disturbances occur when an inner planet, the Sun, and an outer planet particularly Jupiter form specific geometrical patterns.(58) Danjon discovered that solar flares of great intensity disrupt the rotation of the Earth,(59) a phenomenon explained by Juergens in terms of temporary alteration of the Earth's electric charge by one part in ten thousand.(60) If temporary alterations in the charge density occur at parts of the solar anode, differences in the mean size of the Sun, its shape, and its local rotation can be understood.

If the "tidal effects" of the planets which correlate with sunspot variations are not tidal at all, but are electrical, then a strong influence by the other planets on solar activity becomes reasonable.* The planets Jupiter and Saturn, and likely Uranus and Neptune, have strong magnetospheres. In an electrical interaction with the Cosmos, the outer planets should perturb the incident cosmic electrons. If variations in the incident flux cause the Sun's activity to change, then planetary magnetospheres would be expected to further modulate the already variable stream of cosmic electrons.

[Footnote: *Author's note added in proof: Norma Z. Alcock, "Correlations Between Sunspots and Planetary Positions," Peace Research {Canada) 5 (10), pp.59-67 (October, 1973). In this early paper, Alcock rules out tidal effects and suggests that electric or magnetic disturbances might be affecting the Sun.]


Eddington published a survey of stellar interiors; there he concluded that a star of progressively more dense layers from outside to core was the only stable form for the radiating matter.(61) This model assumes that gravity is responsible for holding the star together against the pressure produced by energy liberated at its center. In this model the star is at equilibrium, with inward force exactly balanced by outward radiation.(62) Eddington concluded an isodense star would be gravitationally unstable;(63) like an opened flask of gas at pressure higher than its surroundings, it immediately expands until the pressure is equalized. All of the models considered by Eddington presume that the star is held together and is releasing energy FROM THE INSIDE. What if neither condition applies to the Sun?

I have presented evidence in this paper that the Sun is not increasingly dense with depth below the photosphere. Since there is also mounting evidence that the solar surface layer does not convect energy as postulated, nor, apparently, does the solar interior liberate sufficient neutrino flux, I am led directly to the conclusion that a solar interior of constant density is not unreasonable so long as the Sun is held together and powered from the outside.(64) As I will show in a forthcoming paper, gravity plays no role in such a star.

For now, if I may assume that the Sun remains in equilibrium because of outside pressure, it follows that variations in the Sun's size, temperature, and surface activity can occur if the environment within which the Solar System is embedded varies. In the extreme, even the stability of the Sun, and of the "gaseous" planets, is determined from without. A cosmogony can be envisaged in which some of the planets were created when just such an instability occurred in the remote past. The recent series of cataclysmic events, which ended in the year-687 and which devastated the surfaces of the "solid" planets, can be understood if the Solar System was exposed to three or more, lesser, cosmic-fluctuations over several millennia. If the Sun is stabilized from the outside, we are as close to a possible nova phase for the Sun as the proximity of the nearest galactic anomaly in the external pressure and flux.


1. Measuring the intensity at the center of the Sun's disc yields a brightness temperature of 6270 K at 550 nm. See: C.W. Allen, Astrophysical Quantities, 2nd edition, Athlone (London, 1963), item 82, p.173. This is the minimum value for the central disc, higher temperatures are computed at other wavelengths and in the windows between the absorption lines.
2. Tungsten boils at 6200 K (5927C) according to the table of "Melting and Boiling
Points of the Elements," page D-103, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 49th edition,
Chemical Rubber Company (Cleveland, 1968).
3. Electron velocities of the order of 425 km/s are required to explain the continuum. These electrons occasionally attach themselves to an atom or ion for brief periods.
4. Ralph E. Juergens, "The Photosphere: Is it the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun?", KRONOS IV:4, 28-54 (1979, June); see Part 1, pp. 29-34.
5. Martin Schwarzschild, Structure and Evolution of the Stars, Dover (New York, 1965), p.37.
6. Allen, op. cit., item 83, p.174.
7. The solar atmosphere is about 5% as massive as the photosphere.
8. Robert Jastrow and Malcolm H. Thompson, Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers, Wiley (New York, 1972); see Chapter Seven: Stellar Evolution, "Birth," pp.145-6.
9. Allen, op. cit., item 76, p.163, references 1-10.
10. See A.C.W. Cameron, "The Origin and Evolution of the Solar System," Scientific American 233 (3), 32-41 (1975, September).
11. H.R. Bethe, Elementary Nuclear Theory, Wiley (New York, 1947), p.71. Note also that it is postulated that the size of the nucleus (here a deuteron) is large compared with the range of the nuclear forces, p.31. Most nuclei have radii between 8.4 and 9.8 x 10^-15 meters, p.7.
12. Donald H. Menzel, Prabhu Lal Bhatnagar, and Hari K Sen, Stellar Interiors, Wiley (New York,1963); see: pp.124-130.
13. Ibid, p.129.
14. John P. Cox and R. Thomas Giuli Principles of Stellar Structure, Volume One, Gordon and Breach (New York, 1968), p.478.
15. Ibid.
16. The mean distance traveled by a neutrino before it is absorbed by an atomic nucleus is 10^19 meters (1000 Iy) if the medium traversed is pure lead. In a less dense medium the neutrino goes farther.
17. E.E. Salpeter, "Nuclear Reactions in the Stars, Part One: Proton-Proton Chain," Physical Review 88, 547-553 (1952, November 1).
18. Allen (op. cit., Chapter 9, item 75) gives a value for the Sun's total internal radiant energy. Assuming present luminosity the Sun would continue to radiate for 2.27 million years. Undriven, the Sun's luminosity would drop steadily, extending greatly the period of photon release.
19. E.N. Parker, "The Sun," Scientific American 233 (3), 42-50 (1975, September). See also, "Research News: In Search of Solar Neutrinos", Science 204, 42-3 (1979, April 6). "Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?," KRONOS IV:4, 16-25 (1979, June); and the Editor's Note, op. cit., pp.25-27.
20. William A. Fowler, "What Cooks with Solar Neutrinos?", Nature 238, 24-6 (1972, July 7); Juergens (1979), op. cit., p.22.
21. Douglas Gough, "The Shivering Sun Opens Its Heart," New Scientist 70 (1004), 590-592 (1976, June 10).
22. Fred Hoyle, Frontiers of Astronomy, Mentor (New York, 1975), p.103.
23. The acceleration of gravity calculated for the height of the opaque surface of the Sun is 273.6 meters per second^2. This value is approximately twenty-eight times the acceleration measured at the Earth's surface.
24. Estimated from the chromospheric gas density of 2 x 10^15 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter. See: Allen, op. cit., item 83, p.174.
25. Lewis Larmore, "Solar Physics and Solar Radiation" in LeGalley and Rosen, editors, Space Physics, Wiley (1964). See: sec. 1-4-3, "The Solar Spectrum," pp.120-5 .
26. The missing light is continually being re-radiated by the atmosphere. Its intensity observed only from Earth's direction, is insufficient to fill in the absorption line in the solar continuum. During the moments before and after eclipse totality a thin band of chromosphere can be observed directly. The "flash spectrum" then observed confirms that the chromosphere in part reradiates the Fraunhofer absorption.
27. Elske vP. Smith and Kenneth C. Jacobs, Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics, Saunders (Philadelphia, 1973); see: Chapter 9 "The Sun," especially pp. 235, 238.
28. The most prominent coronal emissions are the red line of Fe X (nine times ionized iron radiating at 637 nanometers) and the green line of Fe XIV (thirteen times ionized iron, 530 nm). During solar outbursts lines from Ca XV are observed. This emission requires even more excitation than the iron lines of the quiet corona. See: Smith and Jacobs op. cit., pp.235-238.
29. Ibid., p.240.
30. Ibid.; see Figure 9-15.
31. If the solar wind is sonic, the wind speed at 3.5 solar radii would be 170 km/s See:
Robert Haimes, lntroduction to Space Science, Wiley (New York, 1971), pp.278f.
32. Smith and Jacobs, op. cit., p.244.
33. A.J. Hundhausen, "Direct Observation of Solar Wind Particles," Space Science Review 8, 690-749 (1968), see: pp.702-3, 721.
34. A.J. Hundhausen and J.T. Gosling, "Solar Wind Structure at Large Heliocentric Distances," Journal of Geophysical Research 81 (7), 1436-40 (1976, March).
35. James van Allen, "Interplanetary Particles and Fields" in The Solar System, I:reeman (San Francisco, 1975), p.127.
36. Ralph E. Juergens, "Galactic Space Charge and Solar Energy," Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review I (4), 26-9 (1977, Spring).
37. That is to say, the Sun accumulates a net negative charge as the corona evaporates. That this can happen is denied by those who exclude electrical effects from any major role in cosmic processes. At this rate of charge accumulation, the Sun would charge to -5 x 10^1# coulombs, Bailey's value for the solar charge. in 5000 years. See: V.A. Bailey "Existence of Net Electric Charges on Stars," Nature 186, 508-10 (1960. May 14): "Net Electric Charges on Stars, Galaxies and Neutral Electrical Particles." Journal and Proceedings Royal Society (New South Wales) 94, 77-86 (1960).
38. J. Lemaire and M Scherer, "Kinetic Models of the Solar Wind," Journal of Geophysical Research 76 (31), 7479-7490 (1971, November) See the first page.
39. Ibid., p.7481. They note that the flow of the solar-wind particles is consistent with a potential barrier located at infinity.
40. Ralph E. Juergens, "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism". Pensee 2 (3), 6-12 (1972, Fall).
41. Ibid.
42. H. Lamers, E. van den Heuvel, and J. Petterson, "Stellar Winds and Accretion in Massive X Ray Binaries," Astronomy and Astrophysics 49, 327-335 (1976).
43. Juergens (1972), op. cit., p.11.
44. J. Ballif, D. Jones, E. Skousen, and D. Smith, "Cosmic Ray Decreases and the Occurrence of Solar Flares," Journal of Geophysical Research 76 (34), 8401-8408 (1971, December 1).
45. Bailey, Michelson, and others have discussed this charge in terms of matter content, ie: coulomb per kilogram. It is also possible to model the system as charge per cubic meter, using a stress of space model as Einstein did in the General Theory of Relativity.
46. Juergens (1979), op. cit., p.41.
47. Ibid., p.50
48. Ibid., p.51.
49. See illustration, Smith and Jacobs, op. cit., p.238.
50. Charles Lane Poor, "The Figure of the Sun, Parts I and 11," Astrophysical Journal 22, 103-114 (1905, September); 305-317 (1905, December); "An Investigation of the Figure of the Sun," Rutherford Observatory, Columbia University, Contribution 26, 386-424 (1908, March).
51. The mean radius of the Sun is 959".63 plus 1".6 for irradiation of the limb. Irradiation is an effect of the Earth's atmosphere; it causes the Sun's limb to appear wavy and indefinite. Determination of the shape of the Sun requires patient and careful observation of the average position of the Sun's limb on many days. Only by mathematical analysis can the small deviations of the Sun's shape from sphericity be separated from the larger fluctuations in the Sun's apparent limb caused by atmospheric distortion.
52. Robert Howard, "A Possible Variation of Solar Rotation with Activity Cycle," Astrophysical Journal, Letters 210, L 159-161 (1976, December 15).
53. J. Eddy, P.A. Gilman, and D.E. Trotter, "Anomalous Solar Rotation in the Early 17th Century," Science 198, 824-829 (1977, November 25).
54. Allen, op. cit., item 85, p.179, gives the relation between synodic rotation and solar latitudes as 26.90 + 5.2sin2<t days. Phenomena on the Sun show slightly different rotation rates depending upon latitude and altitude.
55. Recent work shows differences in the rotation of the corona, the solar plasma, and photospheric magnetic fields. See: J.O. Stenflo, "Solar Cycle Variations in the Differential Rotation of Solar Magnetic Fields," Astronomy and Astrophysics 61, 797-804 (1977).
56. J.M. Beckers, "Reliability of Sunspots as Tracers of Solar Surface Rotation," Nature 260, 227-229 (1976, March 18).
57. K.D.Wood, "Sunspots and Planets," Nature 240, 91-3 (1972). For an analysis of the periodicity of the solar cycle see also, J.R. Hill, "Longterm Solar Activity Forecasting Using High-Resolution Time Spectral Analysis," Nature 266, 151-3 (1977, March 10).
58. J.H. Nelson, "Shortwave Radio Propagation Correlation with Planetary Positions," RCA Review (1951, March), pp.26-31.
59. Andre Danjon, "Sur un changement du regime de la rotation de la terre survenu au mois de juillet 1959," Note, Academie des Sciences, Comptes Rendus 250, 1399-1402 (1960, fevrier 22).
60. Ralph E. Juergens, "On the Convection of Electric Charge by the Rotating Earth," KRONOS 11:3, 12-30 (1977, February).
61. Sir A.S. Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars, Dover (New York, 1959), see Chapter 4, pp.79f.
62. Ibid., p.17; also Schwarzschild, op. cit., p.32.
63. Eddington, op. cit., p.92.
64. I am indebted to Ralph Juergens for suggesting that the Sun's stability depends upon cosmic pressure and not upon gravitation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I wish to thank all those who reviewed this paper for their kind comments and helpful criticism.

[*!* Image.] Solar Disc Courtesy of NASA.

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665