Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #690774 > unrolled thread

2#56page How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  2#56page  How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their  energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom &  Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 15:47 -0700
    Fusion is not reliable energy//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their  energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom &  Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 16:34 -0700
      big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their  energy-- not fusion but Faraday law Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 18:35 -0700
        big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their  energy-- not fusion but Faraday law Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 21:05 -0700
          2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 22:01 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-16 05:11 +0000

#690774 — 2#56page How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018

#56page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:22:50 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: #56page  How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their
 energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom &
 Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:22:50 +0000


How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018

I mounted this challenge of truth and logic of what makes stars shine with energy, before, but only now do I seem able to point to the details.

What I am doing is tossing out the complete Bohr model of the atom, especially the part where it says:

--- quoting Mortimer CHEMISTRY: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed, 1979, page 33 ---

4. When an electron falls back to a lower level, it emits a definite amount of energy. The energy difference between the high energy state and the low energy state is emitted in the form of a quantum of light. The light quantum has a characteristic frequency (and wave-length) and produces a characteristic spectral line In spectral studies, many atoms are absorbing energy at the same time that many others are emitting it. Each spectral line corresponds to a different electron transition.

--- end quoting Mortimer ---

I am ready to tackle this problem. Perhaps one of my finest of all corrections in physics, other than Atom Totality, for what I am about to do is tell science how the Sun really works.

Until now, no-one was able to tell how the sun really works. And what we had was Bethe fusion idea. Which is utterly silly for a logical mind. The idea that the Sun shines energy because its atoms are fusing and thus releasing energy in the fusion process is 180 degrees counter opposite the idea that the Sun and stars are so hot that they ionize their atoms. Heat, high temperature plasma physics is counter opposite to fusion.

Analogy: think of water and its molecules. If you apply heat, you send the water molecules apart, not fusing them together, but separating them.

Ionization is making a substance to be plasma physics, not the physics of fusion.

So, how does the Sun and all stars really shine with energy. What is the energy source of our Sun and all stars?

Stars shine because its atoms are doing Faraday Law of thrusting bar magnets of its muons inside the proton as a coil, yielding magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles are electricity. And in normal cool environment like Earth or planets, these monopoles inside atoms produced by the muon thrusting through protons are stored inside neutrons as capacitors. But in a star like our Sun, the environment is a hot plasma environment and the storage of the newly created monopole is not stored at all but is emitted as spectral line energy.

Stars shine with energy, not by fusion of its atoms.

Stars shine with energy, due to the Faraday Law that its atoms are converting Space in which their muons thrust through the space of a proton coil and produce monopoles, which are radiated into Space exterior of the star. 

Do not get me wrong, there is a tiny tiny amount of fusion going on in stars, but the predominant outpouring of energy from stars is that of Faraday Law producing monopoles and because the environment of stars is so extremely hot, and ionizing environment, that the atoms of stars just cannot storage their monopole production and thus, radiate that energy to make stars shine.

PROOF: If the Sun were shining due to fusion, then the energy emitted would be the Bohr electron falling back to a lower energy level-- Contradiction-- for the atoms are already ionized due to high temperatures, so the atoms cannot emit energy from electrons falling into lower energy level.

So, that leaves just one plausible logical explanation. The spectral lines are created from Faraday Law producing monopoles inside of atoms of stars, and instead of storing the monopoles in neutrons, they are quickly radiated outward from the star into space.

AP


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:30:05 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: 2#56page  How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get
 their  energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom
 &  Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 19:30:05 +0000

There is no doubt that the Sun is plasma physics, no doubt at all. 

So, how can you have electrons falling back into a lower orbital and emit radiation of spectral lines. Fusion cannot explain that for fusion is nuclear based, not orbital based. 

So the answer as to how the Sun shines, is not electrons falling back, but rather, the electrons are muons which do not ionize, and remain with their attendant proton in each atom, doing the Faraday Law, by creating new Magnetic Monopoles. And since the Sun is a plasma physics it does not allow these newly created monopoles to aggregate inside of neutrons but rather, radiate those monopoles as photon light and the star shines. 

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:09:25 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: percent of hydrogen in stars is increasing not decreasing//How stars
 like our Sun really shine and where they get their  energy-- not fusion but
 Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom &  Bethe solar fusion
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 20:09:26 +0000

percent of hydrogen in stars is increasing not decreasing//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion

No-one in the 20th century had a Logical mind in science. A logical mind to say, wait a minute-- the Sun is about 5 billion years old and is 75% hydrogen 22% helium and because fusion is the source of Sun's shining, how can you have 75% hydrogen over 5 billion years. Should it not be 50% hydrogen after 5 billion years. 

And rather than the hydrogen getting smaller in quantity, we see Sun and Stars becoming more hydrogen percentage. 

If you base stars shining on fusion, then the percent of hydrogen should decrease in the Cosmos, not increase. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#690788 — Fusion is not reliable energy//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018

The Sun and stars have too much hydrogen to be the fuel of starpower and besides, fusion is just not reliable. Now if you depended on Faraday law inside ever atom— there, that is steady reliable energy— the stuff of starpower.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690803 — big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The Sun and stars have too much hydrogen to be the fuel of starpower and besides, fusion is just not reliable. Now if you depended on Faraday law inside ever atom— there, that is steady reliable energy— the stuff of starpower.
> 
> 

And another big big clue that warned us, starpower and the power of our Sun is not fusion energy, but is the Faraday law going on inside every atom that exists, where the muon of the atom is thrusting bar magnet and proton is coil creating magnetic monopoles out of turning Space into energy. There, that is a reliable source of energy to power our Sun and stars.

But a big big clue was missed in the 20th century, in that fusion gives off much gamma rays. And our Sun gives off little and few gamma rays. The Sun and stars are predominantly infrared 50%, visible 40% and ultraviolet 10%, absent is gamma rays, yet gamma rays are the predominant signature of fusion. In the 20th century, most scientists were more worried about their Danish roll and coffee getting cold than worried about "doing good science".

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690812 — big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law

Here is one anomaly of the Sun’s gamma rays

—- quoting Scientific American, March 2018 —-
To their surprise, the researchers found the most intense gamma rays appear strangely synced with the quietest part of the solar cycle. During the last solar minimum, from 2008 to 2009, Fermi detected eight high-energy gamma rays (each with energies greater than 100 giga–electron volts, or GeV) emitted by the sun. But over the next eight years, as solar activity built to a peak and then regressed back toward quiescence, the sun emitted no high-energy gamma rays at all. The chances of that occurring at random, Linden says, are extremely low. Most likely the gamma rays are triggered by some aspect of the sun’s activity cycle, but the details remain unclear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690822 — 2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion

The best solution of all for missing 2/3 solar neutrinos— there is only 1/3 fusion going on— rest is Faraday law creating energy of starpower.

—- quoting Wikipedia—-

The flux of neutrinos at Earth is several ten billion per square centimetre per second, mostly from the Sun's core. They are nevertheless hard to detect, because they interact very weakly with matter, traversing the whole Earth as light does thin air. Of the three types (flavors) of neutrinos known in the Standard Model of particle physics, the Sun produces only electron neutrinos. When neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of electron neutrinos from the Sun, the number detected was much lower than predicted. In various experiments, the number deficit was between one half and two thirds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690824 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium fails:

>Here is an example from the Internet in sci.math of Ad Hominem of a writer 
>who hates the person he is talking to, and no matter what the topic is, 
>the message is always the same-- I hate your guts.

>On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> But can you tell us what is wrong with the following proof that the
>> ellipse is a conic section?

So you are back to causing trouble again, Failure Plutonium?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web