Thanks, Jones. I read the paragraph. I'm not surprised read that the paper states "...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity..." More on that later.
Meanwhile, yes, I am basically aware of Mills' explanation of the corona, having something to do with the manufacture of hydrinos, as atomic hydrogen transform into hydrinos due to chance encounters with helium. Mills claims such chance encounters explains why the corona is exceedingly hotter than the surface of the sun. I gather that at present there is no satisfactory mainstream theoretical explanation as to why the corona is as hot as it has been measured to be. Therefore, Mills' audacious CQM explanation remains tantalizing to the eyes of many. Regardless of whether CQM is correct or not, the theory certainly deserves further study. However, the conundrum I'm trying to acquire a better understanding about is whether there exists a distinct electrical charge associated withIN the sun. And if one exists, is it positive or negative? I assume there probably exists an aggregate positive charge within the interior of the sun. Where I'm going with this line of questioning is trying to achieve a better grasp of the balance act between the attractive forces of gravity versus the much stronger repulsive force of like-charged particles (particularly protons). It would seem logical for me to assume that since we know that on a particle-by-particle basis gravitational forces are magnitudes weaker than electrically charged attractive/repulsive forces the aggregate internal electrical charge within the sun must therefore be fairly close to neutral - on average, that is. Otherwise, it would seem to me that the accumulated repulsive forces attributed to all those unpaired protons (with no associated electron charge to even the score) would cause our sun to rip apart violently. Did I miss something fundamentally wrong in my analysis? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
