Can someone Humble my star creation theory? I am reasonable educated but not a scientist

[Oh_My_Stars]

New theory of Earth’s relationship within the universe

Earth - planet teaming with life on the surface, makes hydrocarbon deposits each revolution, is teaming with hydrocarbons, has molten layer, and large core capable of withstanding extreme heat.
Sun - dwarf star, burns blue green indicating heat, the only blue green star both the smallest and hottest star that we can see,
Position in the universe - outermost edge of the milky way

Popular theory is that the universe was formed by a big bang event, a singular event that created everything in the Universe.

Big bang theory reframed - New theory?

Every larger star that we can see is the result of a big bang event due to the relationship between the life teaming planet and hot blue green star which trigger an expansion event; our Sun becomes a larger star and our planet becomes the new blue green star for a new life forming planet that will expand the universe in time when the conditions for expansion are met. The larger stars act as the "history" of the universe. Each solar system is the result of previous expansions due to individual big bang events. The next earth is likely Neptune or Venus.

Big bang derivative nuclear fusion star theory does not stand up to the first law of thermodynamics. My argument is sustained.

Big bang derivative nuclear fusion star theory does not have a fuel source. My theory does.

Is our solar system contained? We do not know.

Is space a vacuum? Yes. Is a container or containment required to maintain a vacuum on Earth? Therefore it is reasonable our Solar system is contained.

Hydrocarbon release is contained at the helium hydrogen atmosphere level of the star. How does Big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?

The Nobel was awarded in 1967 for Nuclear Fusion research performed in the 1930's. In the 1960's the popular opinion was that nuclear was the explanation for everything. Did we jump the gun on star formation theory?

 

[Catastrophe]

As you state, you are not a scientist. I must congratulate you on commenting on one of science's most difficult problems.

"The Nobel was awarded in 1967 for Nuclear Fusion research performed in the 1930's."
However, may I respectfully suggest that you may not be in receipt of a Nobel prize for Physics any time soon.

But very brave of you to stick your neck out in a space forum.

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

Thank you.

I am hopeful someone will attempt to dispute or humble my claim.

I think it will be brave of any person of science to take on me Good Will Hunting.

 

[Catastrophe]

"How does Big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.

"Big bang derivative nuclear fusion star theory does not have a fuel source."
It does. The accretion of matter continues in stars until nuclear fusion begins.

"Earth - planet teaming with life on the surface, makes hydrocarbon deposits each revolution, is teaming with hydrocarbons"
Yes, and when dead vegetation was compressed the hydrocarbon deposits became oil and coal.

"Every larger star that we can see is the result of a big bang event"
No, the big bang (so the theory goes) gave rise to a mixture or H and He (and a little bit else) and because the density varied, more matter gathering in some places, the process of accretion due to gravity began, and eventually (as above) stars began to form. One big bang was enough. Each star did not need its own big bang,

"Popular theory is that the universe was formed by a big bang event, a singular event that created everything in the Universe."
Correct, although there are other models suggested for the very first tiny fractions of a second. That is where differences occur, and suggestions as to whether or not the process is cyclic, and not requiring a singularity.

There are a few points for you to start on.

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

I love being challenged. Thank you for the great response. I came up with this theory because a kid told me about a video game. Inspiration, who knows? Good Will Hunting reporting for his humbling. I fully expect to lose but am skilled in debate.

Big bang is a well accepted theory but has huge problems in my uniformed opinion. The biggest is if all the universe was caused by a singular big bang event why would star creation or the ability for a star to die be necessary at all in a Big Bang theory Universe? What causes any expansion or contraction? It can only be caused by the singular big bang event. The big bang event would create a static universe. Correct?

Big bang appeals to a meaningless Universe. My theory appeals to reason.

"How does big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.
Does it? My theory has a reasonable claim too. Can you go into more detail for hydrogen and helium at the sun's atmosphere? I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light and makes sense in any atmosphere in my uniformed mind, that is why it is used in product conformance product testing.

"Big bang derivative nuclear fusion star theory does not have a fuel source."
It does. The accretion of matter continues in stars until nuclear fusion begins.
Is this similar to how planets are formed? I get that nuclear fusion does not require much energy for it's reaction but at some level the ability for energy to be created or destroyed would apply. Stars burn for millions of years in the vacuum of space due to the random matter they accumulate and a nuclear reaction? This seems implausible unless Big Bang wants to argue for intelligent design by a higher power. My theory gives a plausible explanation of value in the universal scope for the life bearing planet that deposits hydrocarbon layers that could burn for millions of years in a vacuum.

Earth has great building block pieces for my theory in my opinion.

"Every larger star that we can see is the result of a big bang event"
No, the big bang (so the theory goes) gave rise to a mixture or H and He (and a little bit else) and because the density varied, more matter gathering in some places, the process of accretion due to gravity began, and eventually (as above) stars began to form. One big bang was enough. Each star did not need its own big bang,
This is part of my new theory not my understanding of the big bang.

Thanks,

Parker

 

[Catastrophe]

Fine. OK. Might take a few bites (and bytes). So I probably won't get to answer everything at one typing:

Big bang is a well accepted theory but has huge problems in my uniformed opinion. The biggest is if all the universe was caused by a singular big bang event why would star creation or the ability for a star to die be necessary at all in a Big Bang theory Universe? What causes any expansion or contraction? It can only be caused by the singular big bang event. The big bang event would create a static universe. Correct?
It is generally accepted that, after a tiny interval (a lot was supposed to happen in a very short time, early on) everything ran quite smoothly, and there is quite uniform agreement. The "problems" relate to the first tiny time interval. So you are correct only in relation to that first zillionth of a second. [If I talk factually you must take it as read that in contains the caveat "according to current theory as I understand it". You must also accept that I have my own ideas which are not necessarily the most accepted ones, so please take this into account.]
The biggest is if all the universe was caused by a singular big bang event why would star creation or the ability for a star to die be necessary at all in a Big Bang theory Universe?
I don't see this as a problem. It is based on observation, and therefore factual as far as it goes. Star formation and death are not "necessary" to the theory, they are based on observed fact.
What causes any expansion or contraction? It can only be caused by the singular big bang event. The big bang event would create a static universe. Correct?
Do you mean expansion or contraction of the Universe? Expansion is believed to be an expansion following the BB, or, indeed, a continuation of it. The contraction part we have not got to yet. The BB event, some would say, is still in progress. The BB would most certainly not create a static Universe, though some might say that this might happen in many billion years time. Not correct.

Big bang appeals to a meaningless Universe. My theory appeals to reason.
I don't have the faintest idea what this means. Do you mean the BB concept appeals to humanity as meaningless? Or do you mean that humanity sees the BB as meaningless?
I don't yet have the data to have an opinion on your theory.

Now you can see how I work. I hope you find it OK. I put your comments in blue and my answer in black, and underline what I consider the summary answer to that section.
Let's start there. It would be good if we could reach agreements (even where to disagree) as we go along, rather than have one giant furore at the end.
Just for general background, do I assume correctly that you are Europe based, rather than US? Just going by timings and, so far, have not noticed any Americanisms. Partly just to work to time difference (if any).

Cat

P.S. I do not look on this as winning or losing - just as an exchange of viewpoints to arrive at mutual understanding and bettering of ideas in both directions.

 

[Catastrophe]

I will just add these, as there is no need for me to paraphrase the subject:

"How does big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.
Does it? My theory has a reasonable claim too. Can you go into more detail for hydrogen and helium at the sun's atmosphere? I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light and makes sense in any atmosphere in my uniformed mind, that is why it is used in product conformance product testing.

*********************************************************************************
Sorry, I can't change the blue in quoted extracts.

*********************************************************************************

How did the Big Bang produce hydrogen?
Hydrogen didn't appear until the universe had spread out — and subsequently cooled — enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form. ... Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei.12 Dec 2018

How did the first element form after the Big Bang? - Astronomy ...
https://astronomy.com › magazine › ask-astro › 2018/12

******************************************************************************

I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light

I never said that it was a by product of nuclear fusion. First hydrogen (H) and then helium (He) are consumed, which is the longest process in most star history. They are fuel (reactants) not products of the fusion process.

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

You rock. Thank you for your time. I do not intend to waste it and agree very much with your statement I highlighted in bold below. I think an orderly way to go through the topic(s) makes a lot of sense.
Let's start there. It would be good if we could reach agreements (even where to disagree) as we go along, rather than have one giant furore at the end.
I am an American entrepreneur by trade. A thinker by nature but wise enough to know that the best way to learn is to be willing to be the fool, to act. I have been down this foolish path countless times in any number of fields throughout my career and life. I find it stimulating and feel it has led to some wisdom. In a world of specialization I never stay in my lane. I jokingly call specialization staying in your lame and tend to challenge empirical knowledge with intent to learn or to humbly cross apply my lessons from other fields. I can be challenging but my knowledge is never superior, it's simply curious and childlike. I am gracious for your time and expertise or knowledge that you would be willing to share and exchange.

1) Big bang is a well accepted theory but has huge problems in my uniformed opinion. The biggest is if all the universe was caused by a singular big bang event why would star creation or the ability for a star to die be necessary at all in a Big Bang theory Universe? What causes any expansion or contraction? It can only be caused by the singular big bang event. The big bang event would create a static universe. Correct?
It is generally accepted that, after a tiny interval (a lot was supposed to happen in a very short time, early on) everything ran quite smoothly, and there is quite uniform agreement. The "problems" relate to the first tiny time interval. So you are correct only in relation to that first zillionth of a second. [If I talk factually you must take it as read that in contains the caveat "according to current theory as I understand it". You must also accept that I have my own ideas which are not necessarily the most accepted ones, so please take this into account.]

A small bang followed shortly thereafter by a larger explosion. From an argument perspective the concept of time is necessary in a tiny interval so that big bang does not fall apart due to the singularity of the event and therefore causing a static universe of singular origin debate which can be disproved. Absent the secondary explosion does the big bang theory hold up? It does not.

If you rack a game of pool and lightly tap the break and then hit at full force how much true outcome in the event is affected in reality?

A lot of 1960's theory falls apart because it relies on an Earthly nuclear design concept that was popular in the 1960's but never came to fruition on Earth due to a lot of reasons. The failure here is the inclusion of Earth timing concept.

Camus and Claude Levi- Strauss were the Great philosophical contributors of the modern philosophical world. Camus' absurd thought dominated the philosophical space at the time of the Nobel award and has some validity in the modern space. Absurdism is distinct from existentialism because existentialism offers a glimmer of hope and absurdism believes existence is hopeless. I believe the big bang is existential argument philosophically speaking.

2)The biggest is if all the universe was caused by a singular big bang event why would star creation or the ability for a star to die be necessary at all in a Big Bang theory Universe?
I don't see this as a problem. It is based on observation, and therefore factual as far as it goes. Star formation and death are not "necessary" to the theory, they are based on observed fact.

Wouldn't we see mass star extinction events or have some history of them with the Big Bang theory? Stars of similar size would have to go extinct at the same time. Right?

3) What causes any expansion or contraction? It can only be caused by the singular big bang event. The big bang event would create a static universe. Correct?
Do you mean expansion or contraction of the Universe? Expansion is believed to be an expansion following the BB, or, indeed, a continuation of it. The contraction part we have not got to yet. The BB event, some would say, is still in progress. The BB would most certainly not create a static Universe, though some might say that this might happen in many billion years time. Not correct.

Instead of one big bang my theory is that there are smaller big bang events between hot stars and life teaming planets which expand the universe and create a big star and a hot star which carryforward existence. Mine is a cleaner explanation.

4) Big bang appeals to a meaningless Universe. My theory appeals to reason.
I don't have the faintest idea what this means. Do you mean the BB concept appeals to humanity as meaningless? Or do you mean that humanity sees the BB as meaningless?
I don't yet have the data to have an opinion on your theory.

Fair enough. How does life carryforward in a big bang universe? The whole explanation is the bang. Does it? Or do we simply die off once the energy of the initial bang dissipates? Meaningless Universe refers to Camus hopeless absurdist thought reference.

Thanks,

Parker

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

I will just add these, as there is no need for me to paraphrase the subject:

"How does big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.
Does it? My theory has a reasonable claim too. Can you go into more detail for hydrogen and helium at the sun's atmosphere? I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light and makes sense in any atmosphere in my uniformed mind, that is why it is used in product conformance product testing.


From your article "The problem at this point was that electrons couldn’t stay in orbit around any atomic nucleus because of the immense heat and radiation still flooding the universe. Shortly after any neutral atoms would form (neutral atoms simply contain the same number of protons and electrons, and thus carry no overall charge), they were knocked apart again by energetic radiation."

*********************************************************************************
Sorry, I can't change the blue in quoted extracts.

*********************************************************************************

How did the Big Bang produce hydrogen?
Hydrogen didn't appear until the universe had spread out — and subsequently cooled — enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form. ... Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei.12 Dec 2018
How did the first element form after the Big Bang? - Astronomy ...
https://astronomy.com › magazine › ask-astro › 2018/12

******************************************************************************

I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light

I never said that it was a by product of nuclear fusion. First hydrogen (H) and then helium (He) are consumed, which is the longest process in most star history. They are fuel (reactants) not products of the fusion process.

If they are fuel H and He would be consumed and not present at the atmosphere of the star. They would be present at the reactive level. Correct? Hydrogen and helium make sense in the atmosphere in my theory. Hydrogen from burning hydrocarbons is a clean argument.

Thanks,

Parker

 

[Catastrophe]

This is interesting. I will tell you about how I see/saw you and would ask you to reciprocate. This is no sort of ploy and it doesn't involve personal information.
I am amazed that you are American. No disrespect intended. I have not found one US spelling alternative. They usually hit me in the face. I don't look for them. I am a realist and I know that English English is dying the slow death. US 'English' will, of course, eventually become the norm. Already the English are mixing sing/plu subjects with plu/sing verbs. You wonder why I am a language freak? Well I was invited (and accepted) an offer from Marcel Dekker (you may know them - a US scientific publisher) to edit a book on my specialist subject. For that reason, I became familiar with looking critically at written English. Don't ask me which language prevailed. Probably depended on the author of each chapter. I wrote most of them and they were in English.
I have never met an American entrepreneur on line before, and perhaps I am your first English ex Managing Director (and major shareholder) of a PLC? Public Limited Company in UK is one in which the shares may be offered to the public.
I guess you are 40s-50s by your style. How old am I. You may know.
Well, I am sorry to be asking about you. As I said, I don't want any secret information. I am just interested. I have never had such a conversation on line before. Well, it is now 11.30ish pm here. I assume you live in the US? - although from the timings of your first posts, I thought you are in Europe. No matter. I may get back on the second question first as it will be shorter.
I am very conscious of the borderline between science and philosophy. After a very short time after BB science becomes adequate. Between t=0 and then philosophy reigns. There is no science there. My personal opinion is that the Universe is cyclic. There is no singularity (to me, the idea of infinite mass/density is ridiculous. At t=0 you have a nexus between phases of the same Universe which has no beginning or end. I had a problem with entropy until today, when I found a reasonable way of returning from max extension to 'Big Crunch' without the need for ever increasing entropy. Before that (and it could still be possible) my idea was that as the Universe contracted, all came together instead of expanding, and entropy had to decrease - just like steam > water > ice contracts. Well it should, but for some crazy reason, over a small range, ice is less dense than water. Another perfect example spoiled by a simple fact.

OK, it is nearly midnight, so I will have a look at page two.

I promise not to ramble on like this in future. There are too many questions to be answered.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I will just add these, as there is no need for me to paraphrase the subject:

"How does big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.
Does it? My theory has a reasonable claim too. Can you go into more detail for hydrogen and helium at the sun's atmosphere? I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light and makes sense in any atmosphere in my uniformed mind, that is why it is used in product conformance product testing.
Answers here in green: I think that the refs I gave you explained this. From the melee arising from the BB, the simplest elements. Therefore mostly H (nearly 3/4) then He (about 1/4) with small amounts of higher elements like Lithium were formed. Since the first molecular (or elemental) cloud contained these elements, it is to be expected that stars contain these in the same proportions originally. As the Universe progressed, higher elements were formed like carbon, to begin with. This process continued up to iron (Fe) with energy being given out all the time. After Fe it was necessary to put energy in, which is why there are fewer heavier elements (like gold, silver, platinum, etcetera). Stars are mostly H and He to begin with, so obviously that is why their atmospheres contain these elements.

From your article "The problem at this point was that electrons couldn’t stay in orbit around any atomic nucleus because of the immense heat and radiation still flooding the universe. Shortly after any neutral atoms would form (neutral atoms simply contain the same number of protons and electrons, and thus carry no overall charge), they were knocked apart again by energetic radiation."
Simple elements, H and He, were formed first.

*********************************************************************************
Sorry, I can't change the blue in quoted extracts.

*********************************************************************************

How did the Big Bang produce hydrogen?
Hydrogen didn't appear until the universe had spread out — and subsequently cooled — enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form. ... Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei.12 Dec 2018
How did the first element form after the Big Bang? - Astronomy ...
https://astronomy.com › magazine › ask-astro › 2018/12

******************************************************************************

I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light

I never said that it was a by product of nuclear fusion. First hydrogen (H) and then helium (He) are consumed, which is the longest process in most star history. They are fuel (reactants) not products of the fusion process.
This can easily last 8-10 billion years***.

If they are fuel H and He would be consumed and not present at the atmosphere of the star***. They would be present at the reactive level. Correct? Hydrogen and helium make sense in the atmosphere in my theory. Hydrogen from burning hydrocarbons is a clean argument. No.

Thanks,

Parker

***Yes, but the reaction period can easily last 8-10 billion years***
Remember that the stars (especially the early ones) were almost entirely made of H and He. It took billions of years to react. The hydrogen was already there. Burning hydrocarbons does not yield hydrogen, it produces water and carbon dioxide.
CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

Eric,

American's seem to have lost their ability for discourse on many levels. Only political solutions are proposed for everything (if you can call it that). The world more or less seems to be in a constant state of reflection; USA leading the way. American's tend to be obnoxious and belligerent in discourse and only want to win and see no error in this way. I've been fortunate, I've lost a lot, and been humbled constantly in my life, I never had much financial success with my ventures, and have learned the lesson of humility countless times. I'm lucky that I am humble and don't walk with blinders on like virtually all my countrymen. If you gain something in a loss you never lost anything at all. You always learn more from a loss than a win. Take your loss and figure out what went wrong. Curious people solve the world's problems and have since the beginning of time. If we only humble ourselves there is much to gain and we only sacrifice false pride. It was an easy decision for me. Do you come out perfect or transform though experience?

That is cool you write all the textbooks? Makes sense that you would know your stuff. Technical writing skills for the sciences force you to learn the concepts in order to express them. What a cool jobs and life experiences. You are correct I am 42 I'd guess you are in your fifty's maybe? I was an English Literature Major in college but wound up working in Accounting and Finance professionally before moving on to my own endeavors. I tried to write a novel after I finished school and it wasn't good. I was proofreading it and remember thinking who would want to read about this character? The novel was a first person, character driven story, based on myself. Reading my own book that took 6 months to compose; it dawns on me that the guy who wrote this book is very impressed with himself. I studied masters and none of them wrote compositions in this manner (except Fitzgerald but he had far more talent). I've dabbled in writing for fun.

I spent 6 months in Europe after college and loved it. Lot's of people romanticize Paris in 1920's with Hemingway and Fitzgerald, Pound, et al and I ran out of money in my travels in Paris and had to live humbly. I'd go to the market, buy a baguette, and made these simple sandwiches which were beyond comparison to anything I have ever had in America. Just amazing. Parisian's are notoriously fickle and the food quality was amazing.

While I was in Paris, I read Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, which is about being poor in Paris in the 1930's in Montmartre. It's a provocative text by some standards but at it's core Miller is talking about sex and being hungry, daydreams. In many respects we preoccupy ourselves with those same dreams in the modern well fed world. I always thought that if English Literature was the pursuit of truth that Miller in essence had done so in Tropic of Cancer. That by reducing the human experience to a survival state the human daydreams often about sex and food. It's truth. Similar to a Samuel Beckett minimal demonstration of truth in a variety of forms. I was able to go Montmartre, be poor, and walk the unchanged area much like Henry Miller; simply by coincidence, luck. How lucky can you get going broke?

It's nice meeting you as well. I love meeting people are who interested and engaged with the world around them and take their time to share their knowledge. Their is no greater human purpose than sharing knowledge to me. That's how everything moves forward. I think.

If I can ever convince you to drink the Kool Aid on my smaller bang theory we should type it up and both be Good Will Hunting. I stole the idea from a kid who told me about a video game. You can be the new Stephen Hawking and I will be a typical American confidence man.

Thanks,

Parker

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

I will just add these, as there is no need for me to paraphrase the subject:

"How does big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.
Does it? My theory has a reasonable claim too. Can you go into more detail for hydrogen and helium at the sun's atmosphere? I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light and makes sense in any atmosphere in my uniformed mind, that is why it is used in product conformance product testing.
Answers here in green: I think that the refs I gave you explained this. From the melee arising from the BB, the simplest elements. Therefore mostly H (nearly 3/4) then He (about 1/4) with small amounts of higher elements like Lithium were formed. Since the first molecular (or elemental) cloud contained these elements, it is to be expected that stars contain these in the same proportions originally. As the Universe progressed, higher elements were formed like carbon, to begin with. This process continued up to iron (Fe) with energy being given out all the time. After Fe it was necessary to put energy in, which is why there are fewer heavier elements (like gold, silver, platinum, etcetera). Stars are mostly H and He to begin with, so obviously that is why their atmospheres contain these elements.

From your article "The problem at this point was that electrons couldn’t stay in orbit around any atomic nucleus because of the immense heat and radiation still flooding the universe. Shortly after any neutral atoms would form (neutral atoms simply contain the same number of protons and electrons, and thus carry no overall charge), they were knocked apart again by energetic radiation."
Simple elements, H and He, were formed first. Is it essentially being created and destroyed before it lands on whatever.

Your answers really help clarify the process of a star from a big bang perspective for me thank you. For some reason I can usually swim but my basics are atrocious and I can be slow sometimes. Simple elements form first, that makes reasonable sense. More complex takes more time. up until Iron then they require energy. I am clear on this point. I think.

Is there a by product to nuclear fusion hydrogen and helium reactions?

*********************************************************************************
Sorry, I can't change the blue in quoted extracts.

*********************************************************************************

How did the Big Bang produce hydrogen?
Hydrogen didn't appear until the universe had spread out — and subsequently cooled — enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form. ... Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei.12 Dec 2018
How did the first element form after the Big Bang? - Astronomy ...
https://astronomy.com › magazine › ask-astro › 2018/12

******************************************************************************

I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light

I never said that it was a by product of nuclear fusion. First hydrogen (H) and then helium (He) are consumed, which is the longest process in most star history. They are fuel (reactants) not products of the fusion process.
What are the by products of a fusion helium hydrogen reaction?

This can easily last 8-10 billion years***.

If they are fuel H and He would be consumed and not present at the atmosphere of the star***. They would be present at the reactive level. Correct? Hydrogen and helium make sense in the atmosphere in my theory. Hydrogen from burning hydrocarbons is a clean argument. No. Carbon monoxide or dioxide? I suck at basics. In reactions I think something is released and guess wrong often.

So if Earth were to spontaneously combust do you think the atmosphere would be similar to that of a star? The evaporation of the earths oceans would create hydrogen potentially?

I just have trouble seeing how hydrogen sticks to a star but hydrogen has a ton of unusual properties and you have done an admirable job explaining. There is so much hydrogen stars burn a long time but Mars and the moon don't have significant hydrogen deposits. How do barren planets fit in?

Thanks,

Parker

***Yes, but the reaction period can easily last 8-10 billion years***
Remember that the stars (especially the early ones) were almost entirely made of H and He. It took billions of years to react. The hydrogen was already there. Burning hydrocarbons does not yield hydrogen, it produces water and carbon dioxide.
CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O

So in the big event

This all makes sense thanks for the lesson. I'm an idiot. I know.

I came up with a name for OUR new big bang theory. The name big bang theory is actually really good. It's a branding obstacle. So I think WE need to go big or go home. What does the world love? Arrogant Americans?! It has some precedent and that civilized American's would like to apologize. But whatever it is, is winning so,

The Bangtown USA Theory

It would make the news with a splashy name. My countrymen would think I walk on water. Yours may say you had it coming to you and I could reclaim all the financial rewards potentially. Or a couple old guys can just have a laugh.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

American's seem to have lost their ability for discourse on many levels. Only political solutions are proposed for everything (if you can call it that). The world more or less seems to be in a constant state of reflection; USA leading the way. American's tend to be obnoxious and belligerent in discourse and only want to win and see no error in this way. I've been fortunate, I've lost a lot, and been humbled constantly in my life, I never had much financial success with my ventures, and have learned the lesson of humility countless times. I'm lucky that I am humble and don't walk with blinders on like virtually all my countrymen. If you gain something in a loss you never lost anything at all. You always learn more from a loss than a win. Take your loss and figure out what went wrong. Curious people solve the world's problems and have since the beginning of time. If we only humble ourselves there is much to gain and we only sacrifice false pride. It was an easy decision for me. Do you come out perfect or transform though experience?

That is cool you write all the textbooks? Makes sense that you would know your stuff. Technical writing skills for the sciences force you to learn the concepts in order to express them. What a cool jobs and life experiences. You are correct I am 42 I'd guess you are in your fifty's maybe? I am 82. I was an English Literature Major in college but wound up working in Accounting and Finance professionally before moving on to my own endeavors. I tried to write a novel after I finished school and it wasn't good. I was proofreading it and remember thinking who would want to read about this character? The novel was a first person, character driven story, based on myself. Reading my own book that took 6 months to compose; it dawns on me that the guy who wrote this book is very impressed with himself. I studied masters and none of them wrote compositions in this manner (except Fitzgerald but he had far more talent). I've dabbled in writing for fun.

I spent 6 months in Europe after college and loved it. Lot's of people romanticize Paris in 1920's with Hemingway and Fitzgerald, Pound, et al and I ran out of money in my travels in Paris and had to live humbly. I'd go to the market, buy a baguette, and made these simple sandwiches which were beyond comparison to anything I have ever had in America. Just amazing. Parisian's are notoriously fickle and the food quality was amazing.

While I was in Paris, I read Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, which is about being poor in Paris in the 1930's in Montmartre. It's a provocative text by some standards but at it's core Miller is talking about sex and being hungry, daydreams. In many respects we preoccupy ourselves with those same dreams in the modern well fed world. I always thought that if English Literature was the pursuit of truth that Miller in essence had done so in Tropic of Cancer. That by reducing the human experience to a survival state the human daydreams often about sex and food. It's truth. Similar to a Samuel Beckett minimal demonstration of truth in a variety of forms. I was able to go Montmartre, be poor, and walk the unchanged area much like Henry Miller; simply by coincidence, luck. How lucky can you get going broke?

It's nice meeting you as well. I love meeting people are who interested and engaged with the world around them and take their time to share their knowledge. Their is no greater human purpose than sharing knowledge to me. That's how everything moves forward. I think.

If I can ever convince you to drink the Kool Aid on my smaller bang theory we should type it up and both be Good Will Hunting. There is a long way to go yet. I stole the idea from a kid who told me about a video game. You can be the new Stephen Hawking and I will be a typical American confidence man.

 

[Catastrophe]

This time I have used bold for comments. Rather than use reply, I think it is best just to copy and paste into a new box, which is what I have done here. You can then reduce my bold comments, or background colour or whatever, and put your new comments in bold.

"How does big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.
Does it? My theory has a reasonable claim too. Can you go into more detail for hydrogen and helium at the sun's atmosphere? I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light and makes sense in any atmosphere in my uniformed mind, that is why it is used in product conformance product testing.
Answers here in green: I think that the refs I gave you explained this. From the melee arising from the BB, the simplest elements. Therefore mostly H (nearly 3/4) then He (about 1/4) with small amounts of higher elements like Lithium were formed. Since the first molecular (or elemental) cloud contained these elements, it is to be expected that stars contain these in the same proportions originally. As the Universe progressed, higher elements were formed like carbon, to begin with. This process continued up to iron (Fe) with energy being given out all the time. After Fe it was necessary to put energy in, which is why there are fewer heavier elements (like gold, silver, platinum, etcetera). Stars are mostly H and He to begin with, so obviously that is why their atmospheres contain these elements.

From your article "The problem at this point was that electrons couldn’t stay in orbit around any atomic nucleus because of the immense heat and radiation still flooding the universe. Shortly after any neutral atoms would form (neutral atoms simply contain the same number of protons and electrons, and thus carry no overall charge), they were knocked apart again by energetic radiation."
Simple elements, H and He, were formed first. Is it essentially being created and destroyed before it lands on whatever. No. Once H and He are stable, then they form about 98% of the mass. Gravity holds the star together. It takes literally billions of years to use up all these. Do not think of Earth's atmosphere, where H and He leaked away long ago. In a star they are there for billions of years.

Your answers really help clarify the process of a star from a big bang perspective for me thank you. For some reason I can usually swim but my basics are atrocious and I can be slow sometimes. No problem. Simple elements form first, that makes reasonable sense. More complex takes more time. up until Iron then they require energy. I am clear on this point. I think. OK.

Is there a by product to nuclear fusion hydrogen and helium reactions? Yes, the first is carbon, then nitrogen and oxygen. H and He make small building bricks, and these building bricks make larger building bricks up to iron. Then iron builds up up gold etcetera. Stage by stage, bigger and bigger elements.

*********************************************************************************
Sorry, I can't change the blue in quoted extracts.

*********************************************************************************

How did the Big Bang produce hydrogen?
Hydrogen didn't appear until the universe had spread out — and subsequently cooled — enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form. ... Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei.12 Dec 2018
How did the first element form after the Big Bang? - Astronomy ...
https://astronomy.com › magazine › ask-astro › 2018/12

******************************************************************************

I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light

I never said that it was a by product of nuclear fusion. First hydrogen (H) and then helium (He) are consumed, which is the longest process in most star history. They are fuel (reactants) not products of the fusion process.
What are the by products of a fusion helium hydrogen reaction? See above.

This can easily last 8-10 billion years***.

If they are fuel H and He would be consumed and not present at the atmosphere of the star***. They would be present at the reactive level. Correct? Hydrogen and helium make sense in the atmosphere in my theory. Hydrogen from burning hydrocarbons is a clean argument. No. Carbon monoxide or dioxide? I suck at basics. In reactions I think something is released and guess wrong often. In burning - which does not happen in stars. It is nuclear fusion - carbon reacts with oxygen. If there is enough oxygen you get CO2, insufficient CO (monoxide) - but this has nothing to do with stars.

So if Earth were to spontaneously combust do you think the atmosphere would be similar to that of a star? The evaporation of the earths oceans would create hydrogen potentially? Totally, totally wrong. Most of Earth would not combust. Any combustion products would be oxides. The atmosphere would be gaseous oxides like CO and CO2. A star, for most of its life consists of H and He. These are gases on Earth, but in a star they are retained by the enormous gravity and do not 'fly away' like they would from Earth.

I just have trouble seeing how hydrogen sticks to a star but hydrogen has a ton of unusual properties and you have done an admirable job explaining. Gravity - see above. There is so much hydrogen stars burn a long time but Mars and the moon don't have significant hydrogen deposits. How do barren planets fit in? The Solar System has a boundary condition known as the frost line (sometimes called ice line or similar. It is very simply the boundary between where planets are comparatively hot and lose all their light gases (H and He) and comparatively cold, where they retain these. Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars are inside the line, and so are comparatively hot, and have lost virtually all their H and He. The Sun is very very hot, but its enormous gravity keeps its H and He. Outside the frost line, the planets are much larger - but this is only because it is very cold and they keep H and He. If they lost these, then what was left would probably not be very different from the inner planets.

Thanks,

Parker

***Yes, but the reaction period can easily last 8-10 billion years***
Remember that the stars (especially the early ones) were almost entirely made of H and He. It took billions of years to react. The hydrogen was already there. Burning hydrocarbons does not yield hydrogen, it produces water and carbon dioxide.
CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O

So in the big event

This all makes sense thanks for the lesson. I'm an idiot. I know. You are not.

I came up with a name for OUR new big bang theory. The name big bang theory is actually really good. It's a branding obstacle. So I think WE need to go big or go home. What does the world love? Arrogant Americans?! It has some precedent and that civilized American's would like to apologize. But whatever it is, is winning so, I still have only the beginning of what you are talking about. Some of it, so far, does not seem that well founded. But let me understand it first.

The Bangtown USA Theory

It would make the news with a splashy name. My countrymen would think I walk on water. Yours may say you had it coming to you and I could reclaim all the financial rewards potentially. Or a couple old guys ca n just have a laugh.

Don't get too excited. So far I don't see any theory, just a few ideas. Do you want to send me an "executive summary"? That would give me some coherent perspective.

Cat

 

[sam85geo]

At fantastic, informative and very, very interesting conversation folks. I followed along as bet I could, and I did learn a bit. Thanks for your time and efforts.

 

[Catastrophe]

At fantastic, informative and very, very interesting conversation folks. I followed along as bet I could, and I did learn a bit. Thanks for your time and efforts.

sam85geo You are very welcome Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

This time I have used bold for comments. Rather than use reply, I think it is best just to copy and paste into a new box, which is what I have done here. You can then reduce my bold comments, or background colour or whatever, and put your new comments in bold.

I like the bold. Easier to see what I need to read.

"How does big bang explain the presence of hydrogen?"
The big bang actually predicts the initial composition quite closely.
Does it? My theory has a reasonable claim too. Can you go into more detail for hydrogen and helium at the sun's atmosphere? I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light and makes sense in any atmosphere in my uniformed mind, that is why it is used in product conformance product testing.
Answers here in green: I think that the refs I gave you explained this. From the melee arising from the BB, the simplest elements. Therefore mostly H (nearly 3/4) then He (about 1/4) with small amounts of higher elements like Lithium were formed. Since the first molecular (or elemental) cloud contained these elements, it is to be expected that stars contain these in the same proportions originally. As the Universe progressed, higher elements were formed like carbon, to begin with. This process continued up to iron (Fe) with energy being given out all the time. After Fe it was necessary to put energy in, which is why there are fewer heavier elements (like gold, silver, platinum, etcetera). Stars are mostly H and He to begin with, so obviously that is why their atmospheres contain these elements.

From your article "The problem at this point was that electrons couldn’t stay in orbit around any atomic nucleus because of the immense heat and radiation still flooding the universe. Shortly after any neutral atoms would form (neutral atoms simply contain the same number of protons and electrons, and thus carry no overall charge), they were knocked apart again by energetic radiation."
Simple elements, H and He, were formed first. Is it essentially being created and destroyed before it lands on whatever. No. Once H and He are stable, then they form about 98% of the mass. Gravity holds the star together. It takes literally billions of years to use up all these. Do not think of Earth's atmosphere, where H and He leaked away long ago. In a star they are there for billions of years.

Your answers really help clarify the process of a star from a big bang perspective for me thank you. For some reason I can usually swim but my basics are atrocious and I can be slow sometimes. No problem. Simple elements form first, that makes reasonable sense. More complex takes more time. up until Iron then they require energy. I am clear on this point. I think. OK.

Is there a by product to nuclear fusion hydrogen and helium reactions? Yes, the first is carbon, then nitrogen and oxygen. H and He make small building bricks, and these building bricks make larger building bricks up to iron. Then iron builds up up gold etcetera. Stage by stage, bigger and bigger elements.

*********************************************************************************
Sorry, I can't change the blue in quoted extracts.

*********************************************************************************

How did the Big Bang produce hydrogen?
Hydrogen didn't appear until the universe had spread out — and subsequently cooled — enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form. ... Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei.12 Dec 2018
How did the first element form after the Big Bang? - Astronomy ...
https://astronomy.com › magazine › ask-astro › 2018/12

******************************************************************************

I did not think hydrogen was a byproduct of nuclear fusion. I thought hydrogen would be consumed. Helium is very light

I never said that it was a by product of nuclear fusion. First hydrogen (H) and then helium (He) are consumed, which is the longest process in most star history. They are fuel (reactants) not products of the fusion process.
What are the by products of a fusion helium hydrogen reaction? See above.

This can easily last 8-10 billion years***.

If they are fuel H and He would be consumed and not present at the atmosphere of the star***. They would be present at the reactive level. Correct? Hydrogen and helium make sense in the atmosphere in my theory. Hydrogen from burning hydrocarbons is a clean argument. No. Carbon monoxide or dioxide? I suck at basics. In reactions I think something is released and guess wrong often. In burning - which does not happen in stars. It is nuclear fusion - carbon reacts with oxygen. If there is enough oxygen you get CO2, insufficient CO (monoxide) - but this has nothing to do with stars.

So if Earth were to spontaneously combust do you think the atmosphere would be similar to that of a star? The evaporation of the earths oceans would create hydrogen potentially? Totally, totally wrong. Most of Earth would not combust. Any combustion products would be oxides. The atmosphere would be gaseous oxides like CO and CO2. A star, for most of its life consists of H and He. These are gases on Earth, but in a star they are retained by the enormous gravity and do not 'fly away' like they would from Earth.
What if there was a supernova event for the sun? Would it blow Earth's oceans into a gas state and potentially ignite the hydrocarbon layer? Too speculative?

I just have trouble seeing how hydrogen sticks to a star but hydrogen has a ton of unusual properties and you have done an admirable job explaining. Gravity - see above. There is so much hydrogen stars burn a long time but Mars and the moon don't have significant hydrogen deposits. How do barren planets fit in? The Solar System has a boundary condition known as the frost line (sometimes called ice line or similar. It is very simply the boundary between where planets are comparatively hot and lose all their light gases (H and He) and comparatively cold, where they retain these. Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars are inside the line, and so are comparatively hot, and have lost virtually all their H and He. The Sun is very very hot, but its enormous gravity keeps its H and He. Outside the frost line, the planets are much larger - but this is only because it is very cold and they keep H and He. If they lost these, then what was left would probably not be very different from the inner planets.
Incredible explanation. The center of a star is it gas or solid? Similar to earth's core or no?

Thanks,

Parker

***Yes, but the reaction period can easily last 8-10 billion years***
Remember that the stars (especially the early ones) were almost entirely made of H and He. It took billions of years to react. The hydrogen was already there. Burning hydrocarbons does not yield hydrogen, it produces water and carbon dioxide.
CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O

So in the big event

This all makes sense thanks for the lesson. I'm an idiot. I know. You are not.

I came up with a name for OUR new big bang theory. The name big bang theory is actually really good. It's a branding obstacle. So I think WE need to go big or go home. What does the world love? Arrogant Americans?! It has some precedent and that civilized American's would like to apologize. But whatever it is, is winning so, I still have only the beginning of what you are talking about. Some of it, so far, does not seem that well founded. But let me understand it first.

The Bangtown USA Theory

It would make the news with a splashy name. My countrymen would think I walk on water. Yours may say you had it coming to you and I could reclaim all the financial rewards potentially. Or a couple old guys ca n just have a laugh.

Don't get too excited. So far I don't see any theory, just a few ideas. Do you want to send me an "executive summary"? That would give me some coherent perspective.

I think this is a good idea. I will prepare a document and send your way. I really appreciate your help and time. This way you can help me polish rough edges or delete fantasy concepts (or the entire concept). And we can see if something of substance comes together. Thank you for entertaining my idea and sharing your wealth of knowledge.

Thanks,

Parker

 

[Catastrophe]

File:Sun parts big.jpg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From Star Wikipedia

The core is made of hot, dense plasma (ions and electrons), at a pressure estimated at 265 billion bar (3.84 trillion psi or 26.5 petapascals (PPa)) at the center. Due to fusion, the composition of the solar plasma drops from 68–70% hydrogen by mass at the outer core, to 34% hydrogen at the core/Sun center.

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

To an untrained scientific eye if you look at the surface of the sun it appears to be very similar in composition to lava. In many pictures. What is the difference between plasma and lava? I can look this up.

You know when the Parker space probe will run into the sun?

New star formation/doomsday scenario for you to shoot down.
The Earth’s core starts heating and the molten layer begins to grow. In time it begins to cover and consume all the land mass. If this unlikely event were to occur would this be a star too?

 

[Catastrophe]

Do NOT, under any circumstances, look directly at the Sun. This could result in serious eye damage. Especially through binoculars or telescope.
You cannot see plasma, which is in the core. If you look at the diagram you will see how the radiation works.

"If this unlikely event were to occur would this be a star too?"
Absolutely, definitely not. To be a star it needs much much more mass to initiate the fusion reactions.

If the Sun went supernova (Google):
There would be no escape. On the side of Earth that faced the Sun, the explosion would boil away the surface of the Earth at hundreds of meters per second. People on the night side wouldn't do much better. Scattered light would heat Earth to lethal temperatures.

Cat

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

If the Earth's core heated and the molten layer grew and eventually overtook the land mass and evaporated the oceans. Would this be a star too?

No need for alarm I always wear sunglasses when I look at pictures of the sun.

 

[Catastrophe]

This was in my previous post:

" *If this unlikely event were to occur would this be a star too?*
Absolutely, definitely not. To be a star it needs much much more mass to initiate the fusion reactions. "

 

[Oh_My_Stars]

This was in my previous post:

" *If this unlikely event were to occur would this be a star too?*
Absolutely, definitely not. To be a star it needs much much more mass to initiate the fusion reactions. "

If you assume my scenario of a hot lava earth. It would certainly be small but give off light and heat. It would be a dwarf star. Right? Just formed by a different way than popular theory.

 

[COLGeek]

If you assume my scenario of a hot lava earth. It would certainly be small but give off light and heat. It would be a dwarf star. Right? Just formed a different way than popular theory.

Nope. Even a dwarf star would be much larger than Earth.