Your link does not answer the question at all
Sure it does, David. I'm surprised you can't see that.
How does the electric sun model explain the red giant?
You linked to something about one star in your quote about the Monoceros star (which is great) but you still did not answer the question about the electric sun model explaining red giants.
Ironically, you even quote the section on Red Giants which tells you how electric star proponents explain them. They sit in a region on their modified HR diagram (where current density is the x axis) where there are low values of current density. As a result, they will be relatively cool stars under an electric star model. But they are very luminous so they must either be very large stars (which we know some are) or have a very large radiating corona. In any case, they are not necessarily older stars (contrary to the mainstream explanation).
Is that so difficult to understand?
How then does this model account for the difference of the elements heavier than hydrogen in a red giant?
Again, have you actually read anything I've posted or linked, David? I'll give you a hint. z-pinch. It's been mentioned many times during the course of these exchanges.
This might be a z-pinch on the surface of our own sun:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/MDI_T171_000317_11.gif
You can see filaments all coalescing into or emanating from a single point.
This might be one in what the mainstream claims is a pulsar:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/objects/heapow/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.jpg
The shape of the discharge matches that of a z-pinch and there is a synchrotron jet just like a z-pinch can produce.
This might be one at a supernova site (SN 1987A):
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/sn87a/sn87a_xray_opt.jpg
In this case one can again see the filaments that a z-pinch produces. In fact, one can see filaments (the bright beads) in exactly the numbers data indicates z-pinches will produce. Here, David, another source you can not read:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars".
And here's a post supernova nebula with characteristics that suggest a z-pinch source:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/redsquare.jpg
You can see the Birkeland filaments, renamed 'combs' by the mainstream because they don't really understand what they are looking at and the word "electricity" never crosses their mind. And the bipolar hourglass shape is also a characteristic of z-pinch phenomena.
Now I've posted all about this previously ... so you know what I'm referencing. Or at least you should, David.
A red giant star is considered to be older than a yellow star (like our sun) for what reason, the larger amount of the heavier element especially He.
First of all, the electric sun theorists state that a red star is not NECESSARILY older. Second, a star's spectrum says nothing about the composition inside the star. It only tells you what's at the surface or in the photosphere of the star. Third, the mainstream assumes that except for the ratios of hydrogen and helium in ordinary stars, the composition doesn't change. In other words, it assumes that the heavier elements in the sun came from past generations of stars which presumably exploded producing those metals.
But a z-pinch near the solar surface can produce metals and other elements and alter the ratio of hydrogen and helium in the near surface atmosphere. In an electric star, heavy element abundances would not be fixed but would be created in the outer layers by the high-energy discharges. Red giants could simply be stars that once were subject to higher electric current density (producing lots of metals and converting H to He) which are now, for whatever reason, traveling through a region with lower current density.
in the mainstream model a star can transform very quickly from the main sequence to one of the other pockets on the HR diagram
Not that quickly, David. Standard model advocates claim all stars starts out above and to the right of their main sequence position. They move into position on the main sequence when fusion begins. The star then
remains at that location until its hydrogen is nearly exhausted. Then the star moves away from the main sequence.
Prior to its eruption in 2002, V838 Monocerotis was considered an F-type dwarf star on the mainsequence. According to
http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/1202.shtml "there was no known indication of any movement of the star off the main sequence". And although you are suggesting that it quickly evolved from a main sequence to a red supergiant, that source notes that "
Most of the time this takes hundreds or thousands of years, not months!" Wikipedia states that the "lightcurve produced by the eruption is unlike anything previously seen." It is so strange, in fact, that some mainstream astronomers are now claiming V838 Monocerotis is "the first known" L-type supergiant. And guess what? They've suddenly discovered that the star also has a B-type supergiant main sequence companion that they never noticed before.
Now electric theorists have no problem explaining what has happened in a consistent and logical manner. They theorize that the star fissioned (broke into two stars) due to the electrical stress caused by a sudden increase in the current density of the surrounding medium. Mainstream astrophysicists, on the other hand, must admit the cause "is still uncertain". They have half a dozen theories now, none of which seem to fit the observations.
The Hubble website in 2003 (
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2003/10 ) said "V838 Monocerotis did not expel its outer layers. Instead, it grew enormously in size. Its surface temperature dropped to temperatures that were not much hotter than a light bulb. This behavior of ballooning to an enormous size, but not losing its outer layers, is very unusual and completely unlike an ordinary nova explosion." But they refuse to give up on seeing this as a case of evolution. Instead, they say "the outburst may represent a transitory stage in a star's evolution that is rarely seen." In late 2006, the Hubble site still had to admit that the star "continues to puzzle astronomers" and that "the reason for the eruption is still unclear". And it's so rare it's a first.
Even Tim Thompson, a mainstream theory supporter and noted electric star critic, has had to admit
http://www.tim-thompson.com/v838mon.html "the light curve & spectrum are not typical of any known class of object; it's not a nova, nor is it a "born again" helium flash star ... snip ... It appears, therefore, to be unique, the only known member of whatever class of objects it represents. ... snip ... But everyone seems to agree that classical novae, and helium flash objects, do not produce spectra that look like V838 Mon. So, for the time being, the question of what happened out there in the Galaxy, remains unanswered."
So don't try to pull the wool over everyone's head, David, by trying to suggest there's nothing remarkable about this star or that it fits neatly into the mainstream model ... especially your theory. That would simply be dishonest. This is more the actual state of their explanations:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_16_170/ai_n16864846 . And note that not once do they mention the electric star hypothesis. Ignoring it again.
And that's not the only example, David. The link I provided notes that the star FG Sagittae has rather suddenly changed from a blue (BO) to a yellow (K) star ... while still remaining on the main sequence. It quotes a mainstream reference saying "Around 1900 FG Sge was an inconspicuous hot star (T = 50,000 K) of magnitude 13. During the next 60 years it cooled to about 8000 K and brightened in the visual region to magnitude 9, as its radiation shifted from the far-UV to the visual region. Around 1970 a whole new bunch of spectral lines appeared due to elements such as Sr, Y, Zr, Ba and rare earths. .... The star cooled further in the 1970s and 80s and then all of a sudden in 1992 its magnitude dropped to 14. Further drops occurred from 1992 to 1996 with a very deep minimum near magnitude 16 in June of 1996." As the link notes, FG Sagittae has changed from a "normal hot giant to a 'late spectral type' (cool) star with marked changes in its surface chemical composition" over a single human lifetime.
So do you really want to claim that it "evolved" over a single human lifetime into an entirely different type of star on the main sequence? In fact, after the evolution, the mainstream suddenly discovered that this star is also a binary (see a trend here folks?). The electric star theorists again suggest that what happened is it fissioned due to extreme electrical stress. The mainstream on the other hand claims it just happened to burn the last bit of He (the aforementioned helium flash) and then changed into a R CrB variable type star ... and oh yes ... "we much have just missed the presence of that binary companion all those years".
And apparently V 605 Aquilae and V 4334 Sagittarii did something similar. They also "changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly" ... into R CrB type stars according to the mainstream. Even more remarkable ... all three of these stars supposedly changed to R CrB stars in the last 100 years. That's remarkable because as of 2005 this class of star still only numbers about 50 (including R CrB candidates) in the part of the Milky Way we can survey. Don't you think it's a little unlikely that we'd just happen to see 6 percent of that type star created in just the last 100 years ... if they are truly that rare a type star? How long do R CrB stars last, David? No one seems to know the answer but the star that type of star is named after has been one for at least 200 years. So if 3 on average are created every century in this region of the galaxy and R CrB is typical of that type star, shouldn't there now be AT LEAST 600, not just 50?
You do know that the mainstream model can explain many variable stars, I can imagine the hash that the electric sun model would make of that, especially the flaring companion dwarf stars.
Why must you imagine, David ... when the sources I've linked you to have indicated how electric star theorists explain them?
And speaking of variable stars I found a recent peer reviewed paper that actually considers the type of unipolar inductor model first developed by Alfven. And here's what it says ...
"ULTRACAM Photometry of the ultracompact binaries V407Vul and HM Cnc" by S.C.C. Barros, T.R. Marsh, V. S. Dhillon, P. J. Groot, S. Littlefair, G. Nelemans, G. Roelofs, D. Steeghs and P. J. Wheatley,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0611117.pdf , 3 Nov 2006, "It has proved hard to decide which, if any, of the models is correct. Compared to typical accreting systems, HM Cnc has a weak optical line emission, while V407 Vul has none at all.
This favours the unipolar inductor model which is the only one without accretion. The unipolar inductor model, along with the IP model, is also favoured by the observed decrease in pulsation periods (Strohmayer 2002, 2004; Hakala et al. 2003; Strohmayer 2003; Hakala et al. 2004) although recently accreting models with long-lasting spin-up phases have been developed (D’Antona et al. 2006; Deloye & Taam 2006). The shapes and phases of the X-ray light curves on the other hand count against the unipolar inductor model (Barros et al. 2005) which can only accommodate the high X-ray luminosity of V407 Vul with a white dwarf that spins faster than its orbit (Marsh & Nelemans 2005; Dall’Osso et al. 2006a,b). The accreting double-degenerate models on the other hand lead to high accretion rates and strong heating of the white dwarf, particularly in the case of HM Cnc, which is required to be at a distance of 4 to 20 kpc, and well out of the Galactic plane (Bildsten et al. 2006; D’Antona et al. 2006).
At the moment therefore, there is no clear winner, or even leading contender amongst the models and better observational constraints are a priority."
I don't care what the answer is as long as the mainstream directly and honestly confronts the EU/PC theories. I hope this is an indication that the times they are finally a changing.
Acceleration and deceleration had nothing to do with it. 
