UFmbutler":256zmix9 said:
That's a fine assumption and I agree with it. However, my point is that I don't believe enough material could possibly not reach escape velocity to re-ignite fusion, thus re-giving birth to a star.
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. It's been busy at work this week and I have had company at my house for the past few days.
You're going to have to think about this issue a bit "differently" than you are used to, and consider the implication of heavy neutron material being the "primordial" substance of the universe. It can "break apart" in collision events, blow apart when it reaches a critically low density and generally release itself in the form of protons and electrons, current flow being the logical outcome of such a scenario.
It's hard to wrap your head around at first because it's essentially backwards from everything we've been taught in school. I was taught that the 'bang" released only hydrogen and light elements, when in fact these may simply be by product substances from the breaking apart, or decay of heavy neutron material. You have to look at the problem from the implication of neutron material being the primordial material. One has to really reconsider all the implications of something like a supernova. Neutron material can "fling off" into orbit and or fling off and blow apart almost immediately. Eventually the neutron material evaporate and reaches a critical mass and the whole thing explodes. Any parts of neutron material that survive the blast in the core will tend to gravitationally attract any hydrogen atoms it can find, and the whole process begins again, albeit somewhat differently and probably at a smaller scale.
I'm still looking for some papers related to 'star formation' that I think might help my case from other outside sources. I must say however that this idea does make sense, but it has far reaching implications for astronomy as a whole. It's a radically different way of approaching astronomy because it implies "primordial motion" of heavy neutron cores in "black holes" (not necessarily infinite density), and inside pulsars and "naked neutron" stars that lack hydrogen and other elements due the nature of it's last explosion and it's lack of materials in the general vicinity. Whatever elements are released in stellar explosions are going to be draw toward whatever neutron material in the vicinity and its will gravitationally attract any other elements in the area. Matter will again draw itself together, and collect around heavy gravity wells inside spacetime. The key change in thinking is the idea that hydrogen is the primordial substance, and begin to think in terms of heavy neutron cores being the 'primordial substance' that came from the "bang" and deteriorate into other elements on the periodic table over time.
I don't even understand why we need a new method of star formation.
My website is devoted to that topic. Those satellite images and that heliosiesmology data insist that the old model isn't "complete". There may indeed still be hydrogen fusion occurring near the core, but presence of "current flow" in IMO undeniable. There is a need IMO to switch our thinking on astronomy as a whole, starting with the implications of the Yohkoh, SOHO, TRACE, Hinode, STEREO, GEOS and other satellite images. Those million degree coronal loops need to be "explained", as does the continuous flow of accelerated hydrogen and helium from the sun.
We see it forming in standard ways all the time, in dusty cores of molecular clouds. Not around supernova remnants(where around means the remnant is the protostar we see).
In Manuel's model, the 'protostar" is the neutron core. It creates those molecular clouds by reverting itself to hydrogen and lighter elements and by fusing them back together again in "star", like the one in our backyard.
On a side note, I am working on an observation proposal for the SPICA mission (
http://www.ir.isas.jaxa.jp/SPICA/ ) as well as the APEX (
http://www.eso.org/public/astronomy/tel ... /apex.html ) instrument, along with some other telescopes to study the process of massive star formation/star cluster formation more closely, studying samples of each stage of evolution, starting with the initial starless core in a molecular cloud. If you agree with this mode of star formation, where a nearby supernova can trigger an event of star formation(although it doesn't HAVE to occur for stars to form) via shocks, then we agree and we can stop arguing. It is the contention that a star can form on top of a remnant that I have a problem with.
I have great faith that all materials will attempt to "clump" around heavier gravity wells, irrespective of the material involved. All of it will attempt to rotate around the nearest heavy gravity well it can find, and from the perspective of a galaxy, that is the "black hole" (not necessarily infinite density) at the core of the galaxy. There may be more than one of them in orbit around each other. The implication of our papers is that this is a 'clump" of neutron material that does not achieve infinite density due to neutron repulsion. The nuclear chemistry side of that argument is best explained by Manuel himself. Keep in mind that recent papers cite the fact that neutrons, while electrically neutral, have an inner and outer "shell" that surround and more positively charged layer sandwiched in between the negatively charged layers. I cited an article that that study of neutron structure a few pages ago.
We know where stars are forming and from where, and it is not on top of remnants. You know my view from this from my paper that I posted here in April or whenever it was, so if you have a problem with it tell me specifically what it is and I'll address it.
Keep in mind that in "star forming" regions, the neutron stars are "grouped' in a way that allows them to blow material back and forth to each other over time. One pulsar or "neutron star" might remain "naked' until a few of it's surrounding friends experiences a 'supernova" event and blows material back in it's direction. This "trading" of material could go on for a very long time.
I'm the first to admit that this theory works in precisely the opposite way of "standard astronomy". It's practically the absolute opposite of standard theory because it presumes that neutron (heavy material) is the primordial substance and it has always been moving and colliding with other objects and decaying into various elements. In this model hydrogen is simply the most abundant elements in the universe (outside of heavy neutron material) because neutrons decay into protons and electrons and eventually form hydrogen. Hydrogen can "fuse" into heavier elements over time, but most of material flowing from stars is hydrogen and helium because they are most easily accelerated toward the heliosphere. Whereas the heavier elements tend to fall back toward the star (in the form of coronal rain), the lighter hydrogen and helium atoms easily escape the gravity well due to charge attraction with the heliiosphere.
I suggest you have a couple of beers, chill out, and just give the idea some thought. Keep in mind that does in fact require a radically different thought process, but once you get used to the idea, it's actually very interesting, particularly the neutron repulsion aspect combined with charge attraction/repulsions. This does tend to explain the constant source of electrical energy from the sun which we observe in the solar atmosphere. It explains a lot of things that standard solar theory does not explain, including IMO the material on my website. Enjoy your weekend. I'll probably post here a bit here and there, but I will take some time off from everything this weekend and just "chill". I suggest you do the same and just give the idea some thought. Keep in mind that it should be obvious that gravity will work as you expect it will work and it will tend to collect material into larger objects over time. The biggest object in the neighborhood that they will tend to form around are the "black holes" and the accretion disk around those black holes, neutrons stars, pulsars and other heavy objects in the galaxy, including but not limited to stars and planets, comets, etc.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram