Electric Sun theory

electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory

The Electric Sun theory (also Electric Star

theory, and Electric Sun Model and Electric
Sun Hypothesis) is the idea that the Sun
(and stars) derives the main sources of its
power electrically from its surroundings,
rather than from within by nuclear fusion
(the mainstream view).

The Electric Sun is often attributed to a

1972 article by Ralph Juergens,[1] who
acknowledges priority to a 1958 Melvin
Cook monograph, and inspiration from
Immanuel Velikovsky‘s 1946 monograph,
Cosmos Without Gravitation (though
The Electric Sun Credit: SOHO NASA ESA. Source:
Velikovsky himself did not endorse it, see
SOHO Gallery
below). Others who have continued to
research and promote the Electron Sun theory include Wal Thornhill, and Don Scott.

The Electric Sun model is a part of the Electric Universe theory, and is being scientifically
tested by the Safire Project.

Electric sun hypothesis

Ralph Juergens
In 1972, Ralph Juergens wrote:

“The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun
and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic
electric discharge — the probable source of all its radiant energy.”[1]

Earl R. Milton recalled Juergens’ concept of an “electric” sun: [2]

“In August 1972 Ralph Juergens introduced the concept of the electrically powered Sun.
(1a)[1] He was inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky’s contention that electromagnetic forces
played a crucial role in sculpting the surfaces and shaping the orbits of the bodies of the
solar system; (1b)[3] by Melvin Cook’s attempts to unify the electromagnetic and
gravitational fields; (1c)[4] and by the voluminous literature of Charles Bruce intimating
that the phenomena observed in stellar atmospheres could be described adequately by
an electrical discharge model .(1d)[5]

1/8
“Juergens, however, went farther than all of his preceptors in electrifying both the cosmic
bodies and their interactions. He perceived the astronomical bodies as inherently
charged objects immersed in a universe which could be described as an electrified fabric.
(1e)[6] The charges appearing locally on cosmic bodies, he posited, arose from the
separation of positive ions and electrons on a galactic scale.(1f)[7] Later, he discussed
both the problems arising if the solar interior is truly the source of stellar energy (1g)
and the nature of the phenomena observed as the solar photosphere.(1h) The two
papers cited in notes (1g)[8] and (1h) [9] were the last he published about the electrical
Sun before his untimely death in November of 1979.” (References in original)

Milton continues:

“In the first of his papers, Juergens related

the Sun’s ability to modulate the incoming
flux of cosmic rays (which are protons
impinging upon the solar system from all
directions at relativistic velocities) to the
Sun’s driving potential, its cathode drop.
(1i)[10] He estimated that a value in excess
of 10 billion volts would suffice. From the
flux of solar wind protons observed at the
Earth’s orbit, he calculated that a 1015
ampere solar wind current was flowing The Electric Sun analogy with a hydro-electric
power station. Drift currents of incoming
because of the solar discharge.(1j) [11] The
electrons are very difficult to detect. The surface
solar luminosity of 3.9 x 1026 watts
area of the heliopause is some 600 million times
seemingly requires a discharge current greater than the surface area of the Sun
which exceeds that of Juergens’ estimate
by forty fold, but since both the cathode drop and the discharge current values he chose
were minima, the power shortage is not likely serious, as either or both values can be
adjusted to erase the deficit without affecting the credibility of his arguments.

“Then, Juergens showed that the solar photosphere can be compared to a “tufted anode
glow” in an electric discharge tube].(1k)[12] The tuft forms because the body of the Sun,
immersed in the interplanetary plasma, which at its inner boundary is the weakly
luminous outer solar region called the corona, cannot maintain an electrical discharge
into the surrounding electrified galactic space. Juergens noted that the problem could
arise from any one or more of the following conditions: (1)the solar body forms too small
a surface to conduct the current required for the discharge, (2) the surrounding plasma is
too “cool”, (1l) [13] and/or (3) the cathode drop is too large. The “anode tuft” detached
from, and now lying above, the “surface” of the solar body increases the effective surface
area over which the Sun can collect electrons. Within the “tuft”, volatile material –
vapourized from the Sun – increases the gas density and contributes large numbers of
extra electrons because, now, many of the frequent collisions between the gas atoms
result in ionization.”

2/8
Acknowledgement of Melvin Cook
Juergens acknowledges:

“Dr. Cook does not mention it, but it would seem that he has many years’ priority over
me in suggesting that the sun may be electrically powered. In his 1958 monograph, The
Science of High Explosives, is an appendix in which he points out that “the kinetic energy
of accretion” of electric charge on the sun per unit time should be of the same order of
magnitude as the sun’s rate of radiating energy. He adds: “Apparently one thus has a
likely explanation for the solar constant [rate of energy emission] that need not include,
or is at least approximately of the same relative importance as, the [thermonuclear-
energy generation] that is supposed to be taking place in the core of the sun.” [14]

“Electric Star” and “Electric Sun” phrases

Ralph Juergens’ first referred to Electric Stars in his 1972 paper:

“.. it is interesting to note that the calculated energy density of cosmic rays in our galaxy
is comparable to the total energy density of electromagnetic radiation, including
starlight. This is what one would expect to be the case if electric stars were
responsible.”[1]

Earl R. Milton appears to be the first person to use the term “Electric Sun” in the context
of Juergen’s model. He writes:

“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.
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.”[15]

Velikovsky’s views
Main resource: The Velikovsky Encyclopedia

Alfred de Grazia reports that Velikovsky never accepted Juergens’ theory, because the
thermonuclear theory seemed sound to him.[16] de Grazia writes that he

“asked Velikovsky, more than once, whether he could accept Juergens’ theory, he would
reply with a definite negative. He adhered to internal thermo-nuclear fusion as the secret
of the Sun’s radiation”.[17]

The publishers of Pensée note:

“In this issue we feature a paper by Ralph Juergens, whose theses represent a pioneering
effort to bring electromagnetic considerations to bear upon celestial mechanics, and
thereby to illuminate the physical side of the events described in Worlds in Collision.
While Velikovsky urges discussions of this sort, he does not, of course, feel that final
[18] 3/8
answers have been found, and retains reservations about Juergens’ conclusions.”[18]

Comparison with Hannes Afvén

Ragnar Forshufvud noted that:

“In two recent KRONOS articles,(1,2) [2][19] Ralph Juergens’ theory of an electrically
powered Sun has been presented. According to Juergens, a large electric current is
flowing from the Sun out into space. Juergens assumed the current to be approximately
4 x 1016 amperes.

“I should like to call attention to a work by Hannes Alfven(3) [20] where he describes the
electric current system in interplanetary space. According to Alfven, there is a current
sheet near the equatorial plane of the Sun. The current circuit is closed by other currents
passing through the polar regions of the Sun. The total current in the current sheet is 3 x
109amperes.”[21]

Electric powered binary stars

In 2002, Kinwah Wu et al proposed:

“a model for stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white
dwarf pair which is powered principally by electrical energy. In our model the luminosity
is caused by resistive heating of the stellar atmospheres arising from induced currents
driven within the binary. This process is reminiscent of the Jupiter-Io system, but greatly
increased in power because of the larger companion and stronger magnetic field of the
primary. Electrical power is an alternative stellar luminosity source, following on from
nuclear fusion and accretion”[22]

Criticism

From Martin Kruskal

Princeton University mathematician and physicist Martin Kruskal comments on Ralph
Juergens‘s 1972 paper:[1]

“This is certainly an imaginative paper and gives evidence of wide-ranging research and
extensive thought on important and challenging problems. Nevertheless, I have serious
misgivings about the soundness of the arguments and of the author’s competence to
tackle such difficult investigations [..]”

“The idea that the “solar gases are electrically charged … almost surely negative” (p. 8)
doesn’t seem to make sense. If a conducting body has net negative charge, the excess
electrons tend to move as far apart as possible and hence gather on the surface. Swirling
gases inside may well be charged, but some should be positive and some negative.”[23]

4/8
Juergen’s replies:

“I appreciate Professor Kruskal’s willingness to read my paper and submit his criticisms
for publication in Pensée. Though I disagree with much of what he has to say” [23]

From C. Leroy Ellenberger

C. Leroy Ellenberger criticizes Electric Stars in his article “Still Facing Many Problems”:

“Thus, the electric star model originated with an erroneous conception of what
turbulence and chaos entail and, despite an impressive argument by analogy with
electric discharges, it fails, as will be explained, because of a feature of solar structure
discovered through observations from Skylab in 1973, but which was never discussed by
either Juergens or Milton – the coronal hole [..]

“Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if
the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where
they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this
observation, the electric star model can be given no credence; and de Grazia’s remark
that “Juergens had fully disestablished the thermonuclear theory of the Sun . . .” [Cosmic
Heretics (1984), p. 186] is painfully premature at the very least. This point about the
absence of electrons in coronal holes is neither abstruse nor esoteric; it is fundamental
and elementary in any discussion of solar structure.”[24]

From Tim Thompson

Astronomer and physicist Tim Thompson has criticised the Electric Sun Hypothesis, for
example:

“The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions,
both at the same speed. Now, if the first “major property” of the electric sun model were
true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and
attract negatively charged electrons. That’s what the third “major property” says is
happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons &
protons both being “repelled” by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the
sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If
the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and
attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun’s excess charge. But we don’t see
that. “[25]

Don Scott has replied that “Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-
pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple
electrostatics.” [26]

References
5/8
1.
1. ↑ a b c d e R. E. Juergens, “Plasma in Interplanetary Space: Reconciling Celestial
Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism,” Penseé IVR II (Fall 1972), pp. 6-
12; Velikovsky Reconsidered (N. Y., 1976), pp. 137-155. First presented at the
Lewis & Clark Symposium, Portland, OR, August 15-17, 1972.
2. ↑ a b Ralph E. Juergens, Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant
Energy (Part I), Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1 (Fall 1982), compiled by Earl R. Milton
after the death of Juergen
3. ↑ (1b) I. Velikovsky, “Cosmos Without Gravitation” (N. Y., 1946); Worlds in
Collision (N. Y., 1950).
4. ↑ (1c) M. A. Cook, “Quasi-lattice Model of Plasma and Universal Gravitation”
(Univ. of Utah 6/2/58), Bulletin Vol. 48, No. 18 (also Bulletin No. 93 of the Utah
Engineering Experiment Station); “Bands in Solids and Their Influence on
Thermal Expansion and Compressibility, ” Appendix III in The Science of High
Explosives (N. Y., 1958), see especially pp. 420-426.
5. ↑ (1d) C. E. R. Bruce, A New Approach in Astrophysics and Cosmogony (London,
1944); “Terrestrial and Cosmic Lightning Discharges” in Recent Advances in
Atmospheric Electricity, L. G. Smith, ed. (London, 1959), pp. 461-468; “ The
Extension of Atmospheric to Space Electricity” in Problems of Atmospheric and
Space Electricity], S. C. Coronti, ed. (N. Y., 1963), pp. 577-586; “Lightning, Novae,
and Quasars, ” Letter to Nature 209, 798 (2/19/1966); “Successful Predictions of
the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal
Evolution, ” Electrical Research Association (Leatherhead, 1968), Report
No.5275; and many others.

1. ↑ (1e) His theory assumes that cosmic processes involve the redistribution of
electrical charges between bodies bearing different levels of one of the electric
charges. Locally, that charge is chosen to be a “surplus” of electrons. Thereby all of
the bodies within the solar system are considered to carry some surplus of
electrons. This local “surplus”, however, also turns out to be a “deficiency” of
electrons on the galactic scale. Any electric interaction between the galaxy and the
solar system produces an electric current which takes ions to the galaxy and bring
electrons to the Sun and its satellites. Such an interaction, Juergens claimed, was
the source of the Sun’s radiant power. By it, the Sun’s charge level is brought
continually closer to that of the galactic environment around the solar system.
2. ↑ (1f) R. E. Juergens, “Galactic Space Charge and Stellar Energy,” SIS Review I:4
(Spring 1977), pp. 26-29; “S.I.S. vs Ralph Juergens, The Critics and Stellar Energy”,
SISR II:2 (December 1977), pp. 46-51.
3. ↑ (1g) R. E Juergens, “Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?“, KRONOS IV:4
(Summer 1979), pp. 16-25; plus Editor’s Note by L. M. Greenberg, Ibid., pp. 25-27.
4. ↑ (1h) R. E. Juergens, “The Photosphere: Is it the Top or the Bottom of the
Phenomenon We Call the Sun?“, KRONOS IV:4, pp. 28-54.
5. ↑ (1i) R. E. Juergens, Penseé II, op. cit., p. 11.

6/8
 6. ↑ (1j) R. E. Juergens, SISR I:4, p. 28. He assumed a disc-like solar wind sheet, only
two solar diameters thick at the Earth’s orbit, to arrive at this (order of magnitude)
estimate. Based upon measurements made by several space probes, the actual
wind sheet is much thicker. At thirteen solar diameters above or below the ecliptic,
the density of the solar wind is reduced by about 37% around the time of sunspot
minimum; toward maximum there is little difference in the density with latitude
(over the range noted here). See M. Dobrowolny and G. Moreno, “Latitudinal
Structure of the Solar Wind and Interplanetary Magnetic Field ,” Space Science
Reviews 18, 685-748 (1976), especially pp. 690 and 693.
7. ↑ (1k) R. E. Juergens, KRONOS IV:4, pp. 28ff.
8. ↑ A “cool” plasma is one where the drift velocity, imposed upon the plasma by the
local electric field, is small compared to the random velocity (of the ions or of the
electrons) characteristic of the temperature of the plasma.
9. ↑ Ralph Juergens (in reply to Melvin Cook), “On Celestial Mechanics”, Pensée Vol. 3
No 1: (Winter 1973) “Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered III”
10. ↑ Earl R. Milton, “The Not So Stable Sun” Kronos Vol. V No. 1 (Fall 1979)
11. ↑ “ABC’s of Astrophysics“, Cosmic Heretics: Part 3 (1984) ISBN:0-940268-08-6
12. ↑ Alfred de Grazia, Cosmic Heretics, Ch.10: “ABC’s of Astrophysics”, p. 228
13. ↑ “The Future of A Publishing Idea”, Pensée Vol. 2 No 3: (Fall 1972) “Immanuel
Velikovsky Reconsidered II”
14. ↑ Ralph E. Juergens, “Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part
II)“, Kronos Vol. VIII No. 2 (Winter 1983)
15. ↑ H. Alfven: “Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere” in Hultqvist and
Stenflo (eds.): Physics of the Hot Plasma in the Magnetosphere (N.Y., 1975). ISBN
0306337002
16. ↑ Ragnar Forshufvud, “Juergens, Alfvén and the Electric Sun”, Kronos Vol. IX No. 2
(Winter 1984)
17. ↑ Wu, Kinwah; Cropper, Mark; Ramsay, Gavin; Sekiguchi, Kazuhiro, “An electrically
powered binary star?“, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume
331, Issue 1, pp. 221-227
18. ↑ a b “On Celestial Mechanics”, Martin Krustal, Ralph Juergens, C. E. R. Bruce, Eric
W. Crew, Pensée Vol. 3 No 1: (Winter 1973) “Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered III”
19. ↑ C. Leroy Ellenberger, “Still Facing Many Problems (Part II)”, Kronos Vol. X No. 3
(Summer 1985)
20. ↑ Tim Thompson, “On the ‘Electric Sun’ Hypothesis“. Online at his web site
21. ↑ Don Scott, “Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal“. Online at his web site

Selected bibliography
R. E. Juergens, “Plasma in Interplanetary Space: Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and
Velikovskian Catastrophism,” Penseé IVR II (Fall 1972), pp. 6-12; Velikovsky
Reconsidered (N. Y., 1976), pp. 137-155. First presented at the Lewis & Clark
Symposium, Portland, OR, August 15-17, 1972.

7/8
 Ralph E. Juergens, “Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?“, Kronos Vol. IV No.
4 (Summer 1979)
Ralph E. Juergens, “The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the
Phenomenon We Call the Sun?“, Kronos Vol. IV No. 4 (Summer 1979)
Ralph E. Juergens, “Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)“,
Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1 (Fall 1982); “(Part II)“, Kronos Vol. VIII No. 2 (Winter 1983)

Criticism
C. Leroy Ellenberger, “Still Facing Many Problems (Part II)”, Kronos Vol. X No. 3
(Summer 1985)
Tim Thompson, “On the ‘Electric Sun’ Hypothesis“. Online at his web site

See also: Don Scott, “Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal“

8/8