LIQUID METALLIC HYDROGEN STARS
Robitaille's Stellar Model
The transcripts below need a lot of editing for errors, but I don’t know if I’ll have time to do it. I figure it’s better to have something than nothing.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION TO THE STARS
BEST EVIDENCE THE SUN IS LIQUID
DOES THE SUN HAVE A CHARGE?
RELATIVE SOLAR ABUNDANCE OF THE ELEMENTS
WHAT ELEMENTS ARE IN THE SUN?
IS THE SUN’S CORE COLD?
NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN THE SUN
MOST LIKELY STRUCTURE OF STARS
ERRONEOUS GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE MODEL
WHITE DWARF STARS
INTRODUCTION TO THE STARS
youtube.com/watch?v=hjucRZpMldI
In previous presentations, I emphasized that the body of the sun is comprised of metallic hydrogen. It is made of condensed matter, not gaseous plasma. The sun has a real surface, which is not simply an optical illusion as Currently advocated by astrophysics, the realization that the Sun is condensed matter brings with it a new understanding of the stars as well. Like the Sun, they are not gaseous plasma in nature, but rather their bodies are also composed of condensed matter Hence, it can be argued that a liquid metallic hydrogen model of the Sun also changes our fundamental understanding of the stars. Many might say that if a condensed matter model of the Sun is adopted, then the stars cannot be properly explained, especially the white dwarfs and the red giants In fact, you will come to recognize that the lattice structure that is so vital and properly characterizing the Sun elegantly translates to a more profound understanding of other star types. The fact that the Sun is comprised of condensed matter leads us to recognize that stellar material is essentially incompressible This was something which James Jeanes had argued long ago, as you can learn here. Recall from this video that the Sun has an average density of approximately 1.4g per centimeter cubed. In addition, the Sun has a core which experiences solid body rotation. Consequently, the center of the Sun cannot be hollow As we previously saw, as a result, if one insists that the photosphere is comprised of condensed matter, in order to properly account for the solar spectrum, then the Sun must have a relatively uniform density throughout The center of the Sun simply cannot achieve densities of 150 grams per centimeter cubed. There is not enough solar material to achieve that value and to maintain a liquid metallic hydrogen based photosphere. It is because of considerations such as these that stellar material must be viewed as essentially incompressible As a consequence, the sun and the stars cannot collapse into black holes as they age. I have argued that black holes violate the laws of thermodynamics. They are nothing but mathematical manipulations, and astrophysics will eventually come to the same realization The stars are condensed matter and that is the lesson for today. They will not collapse into super compressed objects and not evolve based on changes in nuclear fuel when they differ from one another. It is a question of lattice structure, not of the nuclear fuel being burned as I have stated Before the Sun can make all the elements, and so can the stars. To argue otherwise is to impose upon the stars restrictions which are in large part based on our outdated ideas relative to the nature of the Sun itself Hopefully we will cover all of this and more in the coming year, but for now, spend a little time reviewing the key presentations about the liquid metallic hydrogen model of the Sun. That way you'll be ready to start thinking about the stars
BEST EVIDENCE THE SUN IS LIQUID
youtube.com/watch?v=9INI2T6Nz-o&list=PLnU8XK0C8oTC-slk-xRn91pm05DT4XrVj&index=42
Returning to Alexander Anzaker, he released a video a few days ago on coronal mass ejections and highlighted that for him, this was the strongest evidence for liquid sun. Everyone needs to see that video. Of course, Unsecker is free to decide what is the most compelling evidence for a liquid sun in his mind In fact, that is one of the reasons that the 40 line of evidence paper was produced. Different lines of evidence will appeal to different people depending on their background. That is great. For instance, for many people, the ripples on the Pond is the strongest line of evidence, and I have covered the problem twice in videos Such behavior cannot logically be explained in the standard model without suspension of disbelief Relate The ripples in the Standard Model claimed to have been successful, as can be seen in this paper. But the reality remains that such calculations require the presence of a reflective surface within the sun, something which cannot exist in the Standard Model, as I had discussed in this video. Such modeling also Mostly underestimates the magnitude of the event by a factor of 10 and could not account for the fact that the velocity of the ripples increased overtime. So to claim that such behavior was predicted by calculations is a distortion of what is actually possible for the standard model. Again, there are no reflective surfaces in a Just plasma sun, so calculations based on nonexistent reflective surfaces are without Barrett. I first brought up these ripples on the sun long ago in the New York Times article, and have returned to it over and over again. In the 40 proofs paper, I had noted that the bright regions corresponded to displacement Towards the detector. Unfortunately that was an error on my part, as bright regions actually implied displacement away from the detector. That was corrected in this video, but now I make it clear to everyone it makes no difference relative to the fact that these images provide some of the strongest evidence that the Sun has a true surface Comprised of condensed matter. Still, for me as a spectroscopist, the most important line of evidence for a liquid sun will always be the thermal spectrum. This spectrum cannot be properly accounted for by gaseous plasmas, as I discussed last year in this video and address in depth in this paper. It can also not be accounted for by the electric As my son, despite claims to the contrary, the only feasible explanation is that the sun is condensed matter, as only condensed matter in the laboratory has ever produced such a spectrum. Again, whatever mechanism takes place in graphite instead must also take place on the sun. The only option is the vibration of atomic Nuclei within the confines of a lattice. As I have repeatedly stated, mechanisms invoked in the standard model or for an electric sun have nothing whatsoever to do with the production of a black body radiation spectrum on Earth, and those are therefore scientifically invalid. I remind everyone that how a plasma Produce makes no difference relative to its inability to generate a thermal spectrum. Plasmas always produce distortions like emission spikes, even when a continuous spectrum is present. Furthermore, in all instances, any thermal spectrum simultaneously observed with a gaseous plasma is associated with Jason condensed matter not with the plasma itself. One often hears astronomers state that optically thick gaseous plasmas can produce black body radiation. However, this is a circular argument as any gas which is optically thick will be black body by definition. The problem is that gases are never optically Deck to claim otherwise is to impart on gases black body behavior which they do not possess. Optically thick gaseous plasma simply do not exist. Only condensed matter is optically thick over a broad range of frequencies Now, in closing, I wanted to highlight one thing. When the ideas which gave birth to the standard model were first being developed 150 years ago, our only means of acquiring an image of the sun wasn't the optical range. The range of wavelengths was extremely limited. As a result, it was easy for Physicists to claim that the surface was nothing but an optical illusion. The problem is that now we can view the sun at every frequency from the radial range to the X-ray and gamma range. In every case we see evidence for a real surface. Not only that, the so-called optical illusion also behaves Like a real surface, the sun rings like a bell at very low frequency, and that requires reflections at a surface. Ripples are being produced because pawns have real surfaces in the presence of gravitational forces The doubling of signal intensity at the limb in the X-ray and gamma region also provides evidence for a surface. The list goes on and on. At this point, astronomers need to embrace the fact that the Sun has a real surface The evidence is pointing in this direction and it is simply overwhelming. It is time for the next generation of scientists to rally behind the condensed nature of the stars and with that, bring a new dawn to astronomy
DOES THE SUN HAVE A CHARGE?
youtube.com/watch?v=yCPQamGVTeQ
Many people have asked me to comment about whether or not the sun possesses a net electric charge. In order to address this question, let us first consider this image reflecting the presence of neutral iron at the level of the photosphere Iron has a first ionization energy of only about 760 kilojoules per mole, compared to 1300 kilojoules per mole for hydrogen. Iron would be easily ionized if the photosphere had a net positive charge Clearly, the photosphere cannot possess a significant charge as it is surrounded by neutral atoms. Astronomers beginning with Willed and including Chandrasekhar have tried to argue that the negative hydrogen ion or H minus, is a key component in generating the solar spectrum At the level of the photosphere, as we saw in this video, the claim is not reasonable. It takes a vibrational lattice in order to produce a thermal spectrum. As you can learn here, invocation of the negative hydrogen ion is merely an attempt to patch a fatal flaw in the gaseous standard model The Sun, the negative hydrogen ion, is said to have only one bound state, as you can learn in this paper. For the hydrogen anion, the transition is out to the continuum. Note that even ordinary negative ions such as chloride and fluoride anions have not been detected on the Sun So to argue that a negative species like the hydride anion exists at any great extent when the species such as chloride and fluoride are not found is simply not reasonable. What we do observe are neutral atoms and molecules at the level the photosphere and above sunspots Here are some examples. The fact that these neutral atoms and molecules exist at the level of the photosphere is a sure proof that this layer cannot hold any significant charge. The most reasonable conclusion from all this is that the photosphere of the Sun can neither be negatively or positively Charge. It must be neutral. But what about the solar atmosphere above the photosphere? In the chromosphere we see emission lines both from neutral atoms and positively charged ions. We also know that highly oxidized species like iron 25 exist in the corona, in fact You can find coronal structures richly surrounded by highly oxidized species, which extend all the way from the K corona to the photosphere. In the standard model, the presence of such ions has been linked to temperatures in the millions of degrees At distances OF1R above the photosphere, more than a dozen ideas for heating the corona at this point have been proposed. As you can learn in this text. However, it is clear that what causes the behavior cannot be a change in temperature. We already learned in this video that there is a strong Evidence that the K corona actually cools with distance from the photosphere. I have argued that the K corona and coronal structures are comprised of condensed matter. They represent type 1 metallic hydrogen, which has been propelled from the photospheric level into the solar atmosphere It is likely that this material has extreme electron affinity, keeping positive charges as far away from one another as possible. The corona harnesses electrons from the outer atmosphere and channel these back towards the surface of the sun, thereby helping to maintain In the neutrality of the solar body. As a result, the Sun is trying to capture electrons in order to stay as electrically neutral as possible. It leaves traces of this action through the emission of highly oxidized species in the corona In conclusion, the photosphere simply cannot carry a net charge Known that neutral atoms and molecules exist near the surface. Conversely, coronal material appears to possess increased electron affinity with elevation. This has been improperly ascribed to increase temperatures with elevation in the corona The corona is clearly positively charged. As a result, the Sun does have an F charge, and that net charge rests in the corona. In the end, the chromosphere in corona should be viewed not in terms of random events, as suggested in the standard model, but rather as vital components In preventing excessive mass loss or electric charge buildup respectively in the sun as we saw in these videos.
RELATIVE SOLAR ABUNDANCE OF THE ELEMENTS
youtube.com/watch?v=orCTFO3xY50&list=PLnU8XK0C8oTC-slk-xRn91pm05DT4XrVj&index=32
Now let us move to photospheric relative abundances. Here is the table of modern relative abundances For a few atoms provided online by Katerina Lauders. As we had discussed in this video, modern solar abundances are determined by examining solar Spectra and by noting the distribution of elements in meteoric chondrites. There is actually no scientific basis for such reasoning, as we can never be certain of any real link between the It's in the Sun. In determining relative abundances, we can also have recourse to the solar wind, as can be gathered in these two papers. Unfortunately, not all elements are equally likely to be present in the solar wind. Some may be preferentially retained or expelled by the Sun. This makes all determinations of solar abundances from Solar wind measurements of limited value. They do tell us something about the solar wind, but are simply not relevant to what is happening in the photosphere or within the sun itself. All photospheric relative abundances we determine could be very far removed from what is actually taking place. We cannot know if the spectroscopic contribution of any given atom Has been either amplified or attenuated as a result of interaction with solar material. We are only guessing that the values have importance when in fact they could be irrelevant relative to the true distribution of elements. In any case, it is instructive to highlight how relative solar abundances have changed over the years. This Emphasize how much these values can fluctuate and how little importance one should place on relative abundances in order to accomplish our goal. We can calculate comparable values by referring to Henry Norris Russell's work on the solar photosphere This classic paper was published in 1929. By examining Russell's work, we can get an idea of how values have changed over the past 100 years. As a small piece of history, Charlotte Moore was a major contributor Employed for many years in his laboratory at Princeton. In order to convert Russell's numbers and relate them to modern values, a couple of steps need to be taken. First, Russell provides 2 columns for relative abundances in his Table 14. The 1st is for the neutral atom and the second is for the ionized atom. These must be Time to provide us with a total relative abundance for a given element. Since these are logarithms, the sum is performed in this manner. For instance, Russell provides a log of natural abundance for neutral hydrogen of only 11.2 and 5.7 for the ion that results in the total relative abundance for hydrogen of only 11.2 For hydrogen, the neutral atom dominates. We then add 0.8 to this number to bring the value up to 12. In this manner, all of Russell's values can be related to modern measures. In order to convert numbers for the other elements in Russell's Table 14, we simply use this equation. I do not list All of the elements in the table, just a few to make the needed points. To begin, Russell does not provide us with a value for helium. That is because he has no way to properly ascertain it. That remains true today even if astronomers claim that the Sun is about 10% helium according to their accepted relative abundances for this element of 10 .924 Now if you study Lauder's paper, you will see that this value is derived from Helio seismology. Yet, as I have argued long ago in this video, seismology is a science of condensed matter. The idea that one can extract helium values from seismological measurements is not reasonable. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other Now, to help bring the point home, examine the value in the table for oxygen. This is thought to be the third most abundant element in the sun, with a modern relative abundance of 8.71. Russell had provided a very similar number. Using our handy equation, Russell's value actually comes out to 8.81 would That the numbers have not changed too much. But now let us consider this paragraph from the solar physicists. Relative to changes in oxygen abundances and Helio seismology, the solar chemical composition is still under debate. The case for oxygen, the third most abundant element in the Sun after hydrogen and helium, being particularly important One of the traditionally accepted abundant sets considers an oxygen. Abundances of log epsilon oxygen equal 8.93 ± 0.4 in the usual astronomical scale, referring to hydrogen, where log of epsilon oxygen is equal to the log of the number of the element Divided by the number of hydrogen plus 12, this abundance was later downward revised to log of oxygen equals 8.83 ± .06. With this abundance said, there is an excellent agreement between solar interior model predictions and the Helio seismology. However, using more recent 3 dimensional theoretical The models lower solar metallicities have been obtained, for example, Absalon at all reach log of oxygen equal 8.66 ± 0.05, which may spoil the agreement with the Helio seismology Note, however, that a recent study suggests that we might be underestimating interior opacities, which could restore the agreement with Helio seismology. Given that oxygen is a very important element for stellar interior models, adopting such dramatic revisions would have implications over a broad range of topics in astrophysics Note how they have saved the day. We could be underestimating interior opacities. In reality, they have no idea about interior solar opacities. Now one can see the level of faith involved for tiny changes in the oxygen abundances. The entire field of Helio seismology needs to be reconsidered. You can be certain that as a result Call this. Reviewers will be very careful not to allow anyone to significantly alter accepted relative abundances for any element. We will become locked in a scientific paradigm without real justification. In any event, we will never know the opacity values inside the sun, and claims to the contrary are not scientific. I have already stated that the On his condensed matter that seismology is a science of condensed matter, and that solar opacity values derived by the astronomers have no relevance to the real solar interior. You can read more about this in this paper. Now that we have seen the effects that a small change in oxygen relative abundances can have on modern solar theory, have a look at how relative abundances Change In the rest of our table, we begin with lithium. You recall in these two videos that lithium might help stabilize the lattice of a metallic hydrogen sun. As such, it would not be unexpected that the detection of lithium might be difficult in the sun relative to its known concentration in the chondrites. In the last video, we saw how the lithium line Enhanced in the second solar spectrum. So what has happened to our lithium values over the past 100 years? Well, the calculated value for Russell is 2.5. That compares to an accepted modern value of 1.04. So the relative lithium abundance in the sun has decreased by a factor of nearly 30. Next have a look at Carbon. The modern value is 8.47. The value calculated using Russell is only 7.3. Thus, the relative carbon abundance has increased by a factor of 15. Wow. Imagine what that means relative to what we just saw with oxygen. Carbon, after all, is a significant atom in the photosphere spectrum. It is not like lithium Next, have a look at sodium with an accepted modern value of 6.21. The computed value from Russell is 7.7, so the value for sodium has decreased by a phenomenal factor of 30. Then we come to sulfur with an accepted modern value of 7.15. The value calculated from Russell is 5.6 as a result The relative abundance for software has now increased by a phenomenal factor of 35. As for potassium, it hasn't accepted modern value of 5.04 and the value derived from Russell's 7.3. Therefore, the relative abundance for potassium has now decreased by an absolutely phenomenal factor of 181 I list the values for the rest of the elements in the table and also place the factors of change relative to modern values. Note that the relative abundance of iron, an element with important lines in the Framhoffer spectrum, have now increased by a factor of 11 compared to the values obtained from Russell. The point is made in what other area of science? Briefly determine numbers changing to such a degree. It is true that we have more information now about the Sun than we did in 1929. We can monitor corona lines in the ultraviolet and X-ray using satellites in a manner in which Russell could only dream of The same can be said about solar winds, but that does not account for changes in the relative abundances of lithium, carbon, sodium, sulfur, and potassium. The problem remains that all of these methods are subject to the same sources of error. We can never be sure of these measurements because we do not fully understand the elemental chemistry or Nation involved in the atmosphere of the Sun. To compound the problem, solar physicists are restrained by their models and what they envision has taken place in the sun. If an observation does not make sense, then they simply discount it. We will go over this in the next video when we discuss the beryllium lines.
WHAT ELEMENTS ARE IN THE SUN?
youtube.com/watch?v=5GqQWExwrtE
In the standard model of the Sun, we are told that the solar surface is but an optical illusion, and what we perceive is the effect of rapidly changing opacity at the level of the photosphere. Opacity represents the ability to absorb Reflect or scatter light. The problem is that the evidence for a solar surface does not occur solely in one range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The Sun manifests its surface at every frequency, from extremely low frequencies sampled in Helio seismology to X-ray and even gamma rays. All of these Phenomena cannot be illusions, and even bigger problem for the modern solar theory is that the solar struct Hello everyone and welcome to Sky Scholar. For the last few videos we have been discussing chemical reactions in the chromosphere. Today I wanted to extend the discussion and address the nature of the chemical elements in the solar atmosphere Namely in the chromosphere and corona Hydrogen constitutes an appropriate building block for a star, as it is the primary element in the universe. It is logical, therefore, to postulate that the other elements must then be produced from that hydrogen. Astronomers try to argue that the solar atmosphere tells us something about the composition of the On itself. But such statements are unjustified. Only material above the photosphere can be analyzed. The chemical composition in the interior cannot be ascertained. Still, some claim that Helio seismology can be used to give relative elemental distribution Such things are beyond the scope of what is achievable. That computer models work only provides evidence that an approach can give a solution, not that the solution is correct. Helio seismology can give us many answers, but not the relative elemental composition of the solar interior Clearly, the idea that helium is being photoionized is illogical. Scientists should not rely on a fact that a random process can solely affect a single atom Now let us consider the elements which give rise to the Fraunhofer lines on the Sun. We can begin with this 1966 monograph from the NIST. A total of 61 elements are listed in the Fraunhofer spectrum in this work and they are now highlighted in the red box. However, if one examines the more Spectrum available through the Paris Observatory. Then only 53 elements are presented. You will read online that 67 elements have been identified in the Fraunhofer spectrum. However, I was not able to locate any supporting citations Such a number is clearly in disagreement with the 53 elements found in the spectrum presented by the French Observatory. In any case, you will notice that the halides and the inert gases are not participating in producing Vaughn Hoffer lines The Fraunhofer lines are important because they are used to ascertain the relative abundance of the elements in the solar atmosphere, as you can learn in this paper. But how do we determine the concentration of ideal gases, the halides and the other elements whose presence is difficult or impossible? 13 in the solar atmosphere. This is where it gets interesting. For flooring and chlorine, the relative abundances are derived by looking at hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride concentrations in sunspots. What does this have to do with atomic fluorine and chlorine levels in the solar atmosphere? Probably nothing. It is likely that the halides and the ideal gases are not being seen in chromospheric and Fraunhofer lines because they are being coordinated with hydrogen and hydrogen clusters, as the presence of hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride in sunspots suggests At the same time, we can observe chlorine, neon and argon in the ultraviolet. For instance, the elements shaded with a blue background are seen in the ultraviolet spectrum on the disk. I provide 2 references. Chromium is not reported in the second, but is found in First, with the exception of carbon, which has only been seen on the disk and now placed in green, most of these blue shaded elements have also been seen in the corona. As you can learn in this paper, we now also place helium in Gray because it is not seen in the corona, but rather on the disk, in prominences and in flares In addition, we can add titanium and cobalt in red over the frequency range examined in the ultraviolet. Those two elements are only seen in the corona and not on the disk. It is also interesting to note that chromospheric lines appear relatively stationary while the UV lines Position regions experience redshifts, indicating that the atoms are moving towards the sun as they emit, as you can learn here. Conversely, coronal emission lines tend to be slightly blue shifted, moving away from the photosphere. Finally, here is a figure of the elements found in the solar wind in this figure Elements with higher atomic weights are being preferentially analyzed. Hydrogen and helium are also present, but not shown in the figure. We can highlight the elements found in the solar wind with a star. Note how few elements are present. You might also be interested in the infrared spectrum of the Sun Many molecules give lines in such Spectra, and the atomic lines are dominated by species already observed in the Fraunhofer spectrum. Given all of this, how do the astronomers set the relative abundances in the Sun? First they try to identify all the Fraunhofer lines. They then Examine the relative abundances of the elements in meteorites known as the carbonaceous chondrites. It was suggested in 1937 in this paper that the relative abundances from the chondrites could be linked to the relative photospheric abundances The claim, again, is simply unreasonable. There is no solid argument for this conclusion, but still the astronomers have worked hard to get the solar abundances in the Sun to agree with the values in the chondrites. They have selected some lines, discarded others adjusted abundances with complex Models relative to elevations and played with oscillator strengths of transitions. Now they have a nearly perfect agreement with the chondrite data. This just goes to show that if scientists can play with enough of the numbers, they can generate almost anything as a result. Think carefully before you accept Value of solar abundances For any given element, we simply will never know. There are processes occurring in the solar atmosphere and the interior which govern which elements are visible and which are not. Lithium, for instance, has been hypothesized by Ashcroft to stabilize metallic hydrogen That might be why the lines are so weak in the solar atmosphere. As I have discussed in this paper. Other elements may also be involved in reactions and coordination products, which will never be understood. All we can say is that hydrogen is the principle elements in the nebula and that it is likely that all Stars start from there. The stars make all the other elements. The same applies to our own Sun.
IS THE SUN’S CORE COLD?
youtube.com/watch?v=bC0Xt_Mz2wQ
Today I wanted to present a very short video dealing with the temperature distribution in the sun. Let us begin with sunspots. They appear at lower elevation than the photospheric layer. This has been known since the days of Wilson in the late 1700s as You can learn this paper at the same time. The standard solar model claims that sunspots are cooler than the photosphere because of their reduced emissivity. Therefore, it is natural to hypothesize that the interior of the sun might be cooler than the photosphere. Yet in the standard model, the interior of the sun is hotter than In the photosphere, it is a quantity, therefore, that the astronomers try to maintain that sunspots have a lower temperature. But what about the solar interior? Does it make sense to argue that it is cooler than the photosphere? Clearly the answer is no, and for two reasons 1st, that sunspots have a lower emissivity is unlikely to be linked to temperature, but rather should be a manifestation of their underlying structure. They are more metallic in nature and therefore their normal directional spectral emissivity will be lower as we saw in this video That is why they appear cooler, but in reality they are at approximately the same temperature as the photosphere. How can the question be resolved? Are the sunspots actually cooler or not? We should be able to get a definitive answer from the wings displacement in sunspots. You recall from this video that the Position of a black body maximum or the wing displacement is directly related to its temperature. However, over the past 20 years I have never been able to locate a thermal spectrum of sunspots, let alone one which provides a reduced frequency for the Wien's maximum. It is likely that such a spectrum Does not exist. Sunspots should be characterized by the same temperature as the photosphere. They are likely to have the same wings maximum, but since they act as Gray bodies, they'll have a reduced total emissivity. That would account for everything and explain why sunspots appear cooler than the photosphere when in fact They are not. Secondly, we know from Helio seismology that there are tremendous convection currents within the sun. We also see convection cells, which constitutes the granules. These cells very much reflect Baynard convection as we saw in this video Now let's turn for guidance to the second law of thermodynamics. Heat moves from more elevated temperature regions to regions of lower temperature. Convection currents exist in order to move heat towards the heat sink, and that cannot be the solar interior. As a result, the fact that the Sun has Convection currents is telling us that its interior must be hotter than the photosphere. Convection is bringing up heat from the interior and that heat gets dissipated at the level of the photosphere through a thermal emission Outer space, not the solar interior, becomes the heat sink. Thermodynamic principles in the second law must be our guide. As a result, it is not reasonable to argue that the solar interior exists at a lower temperature than the photosphere
NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN THE SUN
youtube.com/watch?v=shLjbO7pmFw&list=PLnU8XK0C8oTC-slk-xRn91pm05DT4XrVj&index=25
In our last video I decided to clarify some of the issues related to energy partition in the sun. Now I wish to turn my attention to nuclear reactions and stars In this video, I presented the HR diagram. According to modern theory, stars change their position on the diagram as a direct consequence of aging and changing their nuclear fuel source. For instance, in a star like the sun, modern theory holds that only helium synthesis from Hydrogen Dominates. Once hydrogen is exhausted, astronomers argue that stars leave the main sequence and become red giants or super giants. Their internal temperature goes up and they now begin to use the triple alpha reaction and other more complex processes. The key point is that all motion in the diagram Is absolutely linked to changes in nuclear reaction. Why is this? It is because in the standard model there is nothing else that can be controlled. Gaseous stars have no lattice, so everything hinges on changes in nuclear fuel This is all outlined in advanced text and based on this classic paper. On the one hand, astronomers believe that they fully understand all the nuclear reactions inside stars, yet they have crippled their own Sun. They forbid it from synthesizing any elements heavier than helium Yet a wide complement of elements have been detected in the Sun, as we saw in this video. So how do the astronomers deal with that fact? They simply invent another star which preceded our Sun. That first generation star made the heavier elements, and The Big Bang helped make the lighter ones Our sons simply absorb those pre made materials. Talk about placing a patch on a theory. Now you have to ask yourself why was it that the patch was even required? The answer comes from the fact that the astronomers believe that the internal temperature of the sun is too low to synthesize Heavier elements. Of course, they were never able to measure those temperatures. They simply calculated them using outdated and thermodynamically questionable models. The same astronomers neglected the tremendous energy contained in the convection currents of the Sun, as we learned in this video Since they do not believe that the Sun has a lattice, they also ignore all the advantages of this lattice in positioning nuclei for reactions and in transferring energy into a set of nuclei. Hanford by their ideas, they have no choice but to cripple the Sun and invent first generation stars Therefore, I restate that the Sun can make all of the elements. There is tremendous kinetic energy in the convection currents of the Sun. It is reasonable to postulate that this energy can be harnessed to make the elements. It is unreasonable for the astronomers to limit the ability of Her son to make the heavier elements when we have been able to accomplish the feat with relative simplicity on the earth Currently, it is advanced that the PP reaction and the CNO cycle are the only significant reactions that exist in the Sun. Here is a view of branch one of the PP reaction. That branch is thought to exist in the Sun. The first step of this reaction involves a combination of Two protons to make a deuterium atom, but the cross section of this reaction has never been measured on Earth. This series of reactions is thought to exist in stars with core temperatures of 10 to 14,000,000 Kelvin. Stars with higher core temperatures are said to be able to include branch 2-3 and Four of the PP chain depending on their temperatures. The 4th branch is theoretical and has never been observed. Yet it is reasonable to assume that branch one of the PPS reaction does exist in the sun and the others might exist as well. In fact, I would not limit the ability of our On to engage in any reasonable set of nuclear reactions leading up to the synthesis of the naturally occurring elements. However, I question the validity of the CNO cycle. It is said that the cycle was first advanced by two scientists in 1937 and 1939 The problem with the CNO cycle is that it is cyclic in nature and this poses tremendous hurdles. Cyclic processes depend on the careful adjustment of each reactant and this is not probable in a star. Let us turn to the well known TCA cycle in biochemistry To help us understand why the CNO cycle of the astronomers was proposed almost concurrently with the discovery of the TCA cycle in biochemistry by Hans Krebs in the 1930s. Since cyclic processes had been essentially simultaneously discovered in stars and in the cell, there must have been a certain amount Of great enthusiasm about these cycles in nature. But after the TCA cycle was discovered, the complexity of that cycle became more and more apparent. There were important controls placed on many of the reaction rates in the cycle In addition, reactions could be made to use only a portion of the cycle, and mechanisms were discovered which tightly regulated each of the metabolic intermediates. Eventually, it became clear that the TCA cycle was permitted to exist because of such tight controls over rates of reactions And levels of intermediates. The cyclic process could only exist in a highly regulated environment, but in a star such regulation cannot exist. A star is not a living system and cannot ensure that a component of the CNO cycle will even be present to enable the continuing functioning of the Furthermore, like the TCA cycle, a portion of the CNO cycle could function without the need for a complete cycle. Other reactions might come into play in the Sun. In fact, it is interesting that there was no evidence at all for the CNO cycle in the Sun until this past year. That is when astronomers Began to argue that they have confirmed the presence of the cycle through the detection of neutrinos. But if one carefully studies the papers, it becomes apparent that the astronomers are just trying to extract data from noise and interfering signals Here is just one pole from one of their papers. In this work, the three CNO neutrino components, figure one, were treated as a single contribution by fixing the ratio between them. According to the standard solar model prediction, several backgrounds contribute to the same energy interval with Rate comparable to or larger than the signal. An elaborate multivariate fit needed to disentangle all of the contribution follows a procedure similar to that adopted in 615 and 20 and describe in the Appendix Their claims are little more than wishful thinking coupled with a good dose of public press. They have interfering signals larger than the signal predicted by the standard solar model. Then they have to apply complex Multivariate fits in order to extract the desired data. Worse still is that they cannot be certain that neutrinos that they detected have anything to do with the CNO cycle. They could have been formed by other nuclear reactions in the Sun This takes us finally to the solar neutrino problem. As an example of scientific overreaching, the solar neutrino problem centered around the fact that insufficient levels of neutrinos were detected on Earth relative to what was predicted in the standard solar model, as highlighted initially John McCall In fact, only about 1/3 of the expected amount of neutrinos were detected. This was a potential blow to the standard solar model and highlighted that something was seriously wrong. So how did the astronomers solve the problem? Rather than state that their model was faulty, they simply changed the physics of the neutrinos. They did it by invoking elaborate data processing methods and statistical analysis to extract something from overlying noise. In order to save the standard solar model, they had to insist Nature of the emitted neutrinos themselves changed on their way to the earth. Physics had become so confident in their models that now nature itself had to be changed in order to allow the models to survive The reality is that the solar neutrino experiments were not definitive for the standard solar model. Therefore, it might make more sense to look for an alternative rather than try to hold on to a gaseous model of the Sun. Perhaps a solar physicist acknowledged the energy trapped in convection currents on The sun, they might actually make some progress towards a more lucid understanding of the universe around us. We might actually get rid of the need for first generation stars and permit all the stars to make all the elements. That would be a great step forward relative to Clarification of astrophysics. Scientists have a choice. They can accept that the Sun has energy in its convection currents which can drive nuclear reactions, or they can continue to deny that this energy exists and rely on the existence of first generation stars instead The choice seems to be clear. Finally, there is an alternative to explaining the presence of stars at different locations in the HR diagram, and that involves a realization that stars can have differing lattice structures. We will return to this in the future, but if you are interested I have already touched on Subject in these two presentations.
MOST LIKELY STRUCTURE OF STARS
youtube.com/watch?v=LmNix3Eih20
... Metallic hydrogen solar model stars on the main sequence of the HR diagram are related to the Sun in that they share the same lattice. This is how one can account for the light which they emit. Stars which lie outside the main sequence have undergone lattice changes either through expansion of interchelate zones as seen in Giants or Nova, or through dramatic changes in latter structure, as will be discussed when we address Discussed 8 reasons why the hexagonal planar lattice is the proper choice for the photosphere of the Sun. These include the following. No other lattice structure will come close to yielding its advantages, both for understanding the solar spectrum and in accounting for solar and stellar behavior Once again, it is only a matter of time until the monopole of the microwave background is reassigned. After all, how long can those who are interested in climate change or oceanography allow the cosmologists to have misassigned a signal which actually belongs to the Earth? When that signal is reassigned, the consequences will be clear. The Sun will be understood to be condensed matter and modern astrophysics Will undergo tremendous paradigm shifts. Since the Sun is the Rosetta Stone of astronomy, it is not possible to alter our understanding of its nature without altering the entire discipline. This includes how we treat all of stellar evolution, including whether or not black holes Or The Big Bang can exist. Of course, when it becomes evident that the sun and the stars are comprised of condensed matter, others will come forward to advance their own understanding of possible lattice types And astrophysics is likely to face a vast array of suggestions. However, I remain confident that the correct lattice has indeed already been selected. In my opinion, other choices will fall far short of the advantages offered by the hexagonal planar lattice for the photos You're the Sun and the stars of the main sequence.
1. The Sun is comprised primarily of hydrogen
2. Graphite and soot are the best known natural blackbodies
3. Hexagonal planar hydrogen will share the optical properties or graphite
4. Hexagonal planar hydrogen will be easiest to form
5. Hexagonal planar hydrogen has advantages for fusion
6. Reassignment of the microwave background monopole
7. Advantages of intercalate zones in solar activity
8. Advantages of intercalate zones in the life cycle of stars
ERRONEOUS GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE MODEL
youtube.com/watch?v=LoqsG7V13G8
Imagine a container of pressurized gas in a locker under vacuum. If you opened it, the gas would fill the locker evenly. Then if you open the locker in a room under vacuum, the gas would spread out evenly to fill the whole room, and so on and so forth Now imagine starting with a lot of gas in an enormous room and releasing it into an infinite vacuum universe. What would you expect to happen? If you are a rational thinker, you might expect the gas to expand, to fill the void, just like it does when it was released into an empty room If you were an astronomer, you would say that the gas acts differently and instead of spreading out, shrinks down to form a star. In the standard solar model this is called gravitational collapse, which can be extended to include black holes and the theoretical Aspects of The Big Bang astronomers believe that stars are created by the gravitational collapse of a gaseous mass this was once known as Laplace's nebular hypothesis, but today is known as a solar nebular disc model. This idea stands against the known observation that Expand to fill the void. So how does astronomy get into this mess? Cosmologists view the universe as a thermodynamically closed system, since an imaginary boundary can be placed all around the matter which was produced in The Big Bang In our video on the kinetic theory of gases, we also use a closed system. Therefore, the fact that astronomers consider the universe closed allows the result obtained in our presentation on the kinetic theory to be applied relative to a gaseous cloud in space For the sake of discussion, our closed gaseous cloud system is not under the gravitational influence of another system. The question is, can such a system undergo gravitational collapse? The laws of thermodynamics say no can Is that the internal energy of an ideal gaseous system U was simply equal to the kinetic energy of the gas atoms in the enclosure. We also demonstrated that the total energy of the system could be raised by elevating it above the earth. However, the internal energy of the system and its associated temper Did not change. The potential energy term arose because we had two objects attracting one another, the system of gas atoms and the earth. However, when there is no object like the earth acting on our system, potential energy cannot play any role, Adding potential energy to System violates the zero with first and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. When astronomers consider gravitational collapse, they actually bring in potential gravitational energy and completely redefine internal energy of gases by making it equal to the total energy of the system. They now state that the internal energy of System U is equal to the kinetic energy KE plus the gravitational potential energy PE as we had seen before. But remember that was an equation for a gaseous system when it was interacting with another object like the Earth. You cannot use this equation within a gas itself Still, the astronomers go on and apply what is known as the virial theorem, which states that the potential energy of a self gravitating system is equal to 1/2 of the total energy. Again, such a theory is incorrect on its face. There is no mathematical relationship between kinetic energy and potential energy In an isolated gas not influenced by another system, still they go forward and obtain that two times the kinetic energy of the system is equal to the negative potential energy. With a little more mathematical gymnastics, they calculate that the total potential energy of gravitation is equal to minus Three GM squared divided by 5R, where G is the universal constant of gravitation, M is the total mass of the system, and little R is the radius of the gaseous mass. You can already see that this is not reasonable as it is impossible to ascertain the radius of a bunch of gas atoms we already saw The kinetic energy of a monoatomic gas is equal to three halves RT, where big R is the gas constant and T is the absolute temperature. So they get this equation. But now the potential energy associated with gravitation enters into the problem and this changes absolutely everything relative to the thermodynamics of the What are the consequences? A little rearrangement shows that a decrease in radius of the gas little R increases the temperature. The kinetic theory of gases, on the other hand, shows that only work on the system can be used to increase temperature There are no external forces which can do work on our gaseous cloud in this hypothetically closed system. Therefore, the predicted increase in temperature is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics A system cannot do work on itself that is equivalent to creating energy. Astrophysics has built a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. In addition, work cannot be done without a heat sink, and a gravitationally collapsing mass does not emit photons into the Things. If a gaseous cloud could collapse and thereby decrease its entropy without doing work, that would be a violation of the second law. They have also built a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. The equation also violates the 0 width law in the definition of temperature as an intensive Property. The internal energy of a gas defines temperature, and it is completely unaffected by gravity. In the gravitational collapse model, temperature depends on two extensive quantities, mass and radius, since the derivation of the top equation assumes a gas sphere of uniform density Then we could express little R in this equation in terms of mass. This shows the temperature is actually being defined by a single extensive property. That is a violation of the zeroth law and another reason why gravitational collapse is incorrect This strange premise also leads astronomers to claim the heat capacity of a gravitating mass is negative and equal to -3 halves R. Recall that our equation for heat capacity C sub V is equal to delta Q divided by delta T. By rearranging this equation, we see that an increase in Leads to a decrease in temperature. There is no basis for negative heat capacity in the stars. The idea of star formation through gravitational collapse, ensuing black holes, and associated big bangs all violate the laws of physics and thermal emission the only way out of this Mass is to acknowledge that stars are condensed matter and form through condensation reactions.
WHITE DWARF STARS
White Dwarfs youtube.com/watch?v=sEz71ULRqEA
... The third type of star that contains evidence for quasi molecular hydrogen are the horizontal branch stars. These are stars where the metal content is thought to be low and the Balmer lines are once again known to be strong, as can be seen in this figure Astrophysicists must contend with the fact that the atmospheres of DA white dwarfs are well known to contain quasi hydrogen molecules and ions, leading to a simple explanation for the redshifts observed without absurd gravities and density values. The presence of these Should have been discussed in all modern papers about supposed gravitational redshifts in the A white dwarfs and redshifts for every bomber line should be reported instead of picking and choosing the most convenient such as the hydrogen alpha line Failure to mention the presence of these quasi hydrogen molecules was a serious distortion of observational facts. The UV spectrum of DA white dwarfs matter and their contents must not be discounted, especially if one wants to claim outlandish densities. Furthermore, since it is understood Quasi hydrogen molecules and quasi hydrogen molecular cations can exist in DA white wars. Then their presence can never be discounted in any DA white dwarf atmosphere, including that of Sirius B. This is true whether or not one believes that the dip seen in this figure is real. We must Simply assume that quasi hydrogen molecules exist in the atmosphere of Sirius B and that their presence can produce a strong redshift. That is because such molecules are known to exist in other DA white dwarfs. Indeed, the Stark effects can be much greater than 50%. In addition, since each line can be Affected differently. That is why it is so important to report the redshifts of every visible Balmer line. This was done in early papers, but modern papers on Sirius B, for instance, have chosen to focus solely on the hydrogen Alpha line and failed to report as they should have, the richest associated with all The other lines, in my opinion, when combined with the fact that Eddington's mass luminosity expression provided an invalid basis for assuming that ultra dense white dwarves even existed, the presence of quasi hydrogen molecules provides powerful proofs that these stars are not ultra dance we are dealing with Stars of ordinary density that simply have a different lattice and an atmosphere containing quasi hydrogen molecules and quasi hydrogen molecular cations which act to both strengthen and shift the Balmer lines. In our next video we will continue our exploration of white dwarfs
White Dwarfs youtube.com/watch?v=7TvAYJUpbpY
... We have reviewed yet another proof that white dwarf stars are not incredibly dense. The presence of metals on the surface of the dwarfs implies two things. First, these stars are not ultra dance. Second, all are clean gravitational red shift calculations are ill-founded. What makes the most sense? Should we allow reasonable densities and naturally occurring metals in the atmosphere of the dwarf, or should we permit recourse to incredible densities and the use of pollution, accretion, planetary debris, and radiative levitation astronomy dismisses the evidence in order to accept the fanciful.
White Dwarf Stars youtube.com/watch?v=l7lIKC9Zl1g
With a brief look at the life cycle of the stars, the analysis presented so far has revealed that white dwarves are extremely unlikely to be hyperdense as currently believed. What is far more likely is that they possess ordinary density but lower luminosity as a result of changes in Out of structure The question becomes, how have these changes in lattice structure occurred in the white dwarf? In order to place everything in context, let us return once again to the main sequence of the stars As mentioned previously, the stars on the main sequence share the same lattice structure at the level of their photosphere. The most reasonable candidate for this lattice is hexagonal planar, as we saw in this video. The selection of this lattice is important not only to properly account for thermal emission, but also because it enables Existence of intercalate zones wherein non hydrogen elements reside. After synthesis, the intercalate region becomes populated by non hydrogen atoms as such elements are immiscible with the hydrogen based lattice as a result Stable stars are constantly clearing their intercalate zones by expelling non hydrogen elements. That is why the Sun becomes active on an 11 year cycle as previously described here. Simplistically, this is also why stars can form red giants or supernova as previously outlined in this presentation Again, both processes owe their origin to atoms located in intercalate regions. When the star is stable, these non hydrogen atoms are packed much like in a solid. However, if a star experiences a disturbance or external shock Then the intercalate atoms can adopt A gaseous phase. The interchalate regions expand and form either red giants or supernova. Note that if integral regions are distributed throughout much of the interior of the star, one could form a red giant. In that case, expansion would occur slowly with different regions Panning overtime, whereas violent expansion of just a few regions would form a supernova. This is much like what happens in the laboratory when graphite has been saturated with gas atoms, as one can learn in these papers. In such cases, a graphite block can rapidly expand a hundredfold in the Perpendicular to the intercalate planes under the action of external shock. In fact, there are many methods of producing expanded graphite in the laboratory using exfoliating forces, and all of them take advantage of the presence of intercalate regions and the weak interplane attraction in graphite as a result of Yes. Another key aspect of the metallic hydrogen solar model is that the core of All Stars is comprised of hydrogen, although with different lattice structure. Due to compression and the enormous pressures at the center of a star, carbon cores, as currently proposed in the standard model for white dwarfs, do not exist in the context of Metallic hydrogen Solar model The cores of stars are made of hydrogen for two reasons. First, non hydrogen elements are constantly being expelled from the star and are not permitted to build up in a stable structure. Secondly, non hydrogen elements do not gravitationally settle to the center of the star because the Of the lattice structure restricts diffusion of these elements. Gravitational settling is therefore prevented. Along these lines, Professor Sexual Ishimaru has proposed that the core of the sun could be metallic hydrogen in body centered cubic form He advanced a density for the core which matched that of the standard model at 150 grams per centimeter cubed. This is a key difference with the liquid metallic hydrogen solar model. In the latter, the density of the star is relatively uniform throughout, as was initially proposed by James Genes for liquid At the turn of the 20th century, Jeans had proposed that liquid stars would be essentially incompressible by definition. In the metallic hydrogen solar model, this concept has been taken a little further. The star is prevented from undergoing gravitational collapse by the presence of electron degeneracy in the one component plasma Which constitutes the metallic hydrogen based on the metallic hydrogen solar model. As a star ages, it should simply cool and move down the main sequence. This is what is rationally expected for cooling object. Ideally, the sun should be stable and cool slowly the dangerous intercalate atoms This is being gradually expelled after they form when the Sun becomes active. In this way we have a stable star, as must be true for most of the stars of the main sequence. In order to create an environment for life, the star must remain stable over time Conversely, the formation of red giants and supernova should be rare events. Now consider what is happening in the standard model. In this model, stars on the main sequence are unable to cool. They have negative heat capacity and therefore as they lose energy, their temperature actually goes up, according to Eddington Modern astrophysics. As a result, in order for an ordinary star to cool in the standard model, it must leave the main sequence and become a white dwarf. In doing so, the stars are said to follow a completely unreasonable path in the HR diagram, as one can see here Just consider for a moment what is being displayed. In order for a star like the Sun to cool, it must undergo a fantastic gymnastic. As it mores from one type of object to another, it is prevented from simply moving down the main sequence In the case of a star like the Sun, it must first become a red giant, then eject a planetary nebula. Once a star runs out of nuclear fuel, it undergoes gravitational collapse into a white dwarf, and only then can it finally begin to cool. In this case, the core of the star is typically considered to be composed of carbon, although other Are also said to be possible. In proposing all of these steps, astrophysicists have followed the stellar equation of state for gaseous stars into a Ptolemaic world. The entire scenario is unrealistic as now the formation of an ultra dense white dwarf is the only way to cool the main sequence star like the On, it is much more reasonable to simply allow the star to cool from G class down to KMNQ classes. There is no reason to leave the main sequence unless instability takes place. If you are interested in further insight into the standard model, the consequences of negative heat capacities, and exploring Hour diagram that stars must make to cool in this model. This text provides no less than 9 chapters on the subject, all of which are filled with conjecture. Again, mean sequence stars must be allowed to cool simply by staying on the mean sequence. Forget about 9 chapters outlining Implausible. Beyond being used to ultimately allow stars to cool in the Standard model, white dwarfs are also employed to explain the formation of supernova. In the Standard model, the mass of the ultra dense white dwarf is limited to a specific maximum, which is equal to about 1.4 times the mass of the Sun Known as the Chandrasekhar limit, if the mass of the dwarf exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, then the star becomes unstable and explodes, forming ANOVA. The problems with this idea are twofold. First, it is unlikely that the required Ultra Dance Chantershikar white dwarf actually even exists, as we saw in this series It is much more probable that white dwarfs are stars of ordinary density but with altered photospheric lattice structure. Second, this mechanism of supernova formation requires the accretion of material on to the white dwarf, and such accretion from another star is unlikely. It is much more reasonable State that a star becomes unstable due to its own internal structure, as proposed in the context of the liquid metallic hydrogen solar model. This brings us to the question of how white dwarfs are actually formed in the liquid metallic hydrogen solar model Two possibilities come to mind. The 1st is evident Astargo's supernova as a result of the rapid expansion of intercalate regions. When it does so, it sheds its external layers and the force involved can further alter the essentially rigid core. This could act to change the structure of the core from Centered cubic in stars of ordinary mass two more diamond like hydrogen based lattice. The idea is supported by the fact that white dwarfs are known to be found as remnants of supernova and at the center of some planetary nebulae, as one can learn in these papers. In some cases perhaps the stellar envelope Has sufficient time to dissipate away, and we are left with a single white dwarf. The second possibility involves the ejection of a stellar core in the large and rapidly rotating parent star. Such a possibility is made feasible by the study of rotating ellipsoids, one of the foundations of liquid stars When a large liquid star rotates, it can become pear shaped, as seen here. If during rapid rotation the core of the star is displaced from the center, then fission of the pear configuration could result into stars. One would be the ejected core, a white dwarf, and the other would be a companion star which now has developed its Both objects would end up with very similar densities. Since so many binary star systems exist. Such a mechanism is reasonable and could account for systems such as serious A&B, for instance the white dwarf in this case originating from a more massive * Enhance the parrot core from which it came could have a diamond structure. Of course, nothing actually precludes the body centered cubic as having lower emissivity than the hexagonal planar lattice. This concludes our analysis of white dwarf stars in the end this series Has convincingly demonstrated that such stars are simply not hyperdense. There are powerful arguments against the existence of ultra dance white dwarfs and how they are currently used in astrophysics. First, in this video we saw that Eddington's mass luminosity expression Violates the laws of thermodynamics as this equation makes temperature non intensive. From this expression, Eddington came to the assumption that All Stars could be treated as ideal gases, a concept which is demonstrably false. The sun is comprised of condensed matter as Evidence by examining surface Secondly, Eddington quietly insisted that he could set the emissivity of All Stars to one. Therefore, he was left with radius as the only means to lower the luminosity of a star. This faulty logic created hyperdense white dwarves. Third, we analyze the gravitational Head shift arguments involving hydrogen in these two videos and demonstrated many problems, including the fact that different hydrogen lines produce different redshifts in the same star. Four, we saw how temperatures inferred from white dwarf models lost all reliability In the modern analysis of Sirius B 5th, we noted the presence of quasi hydrogen molecules and ions in WA white dwarfs. This provided evidence that the hydrogen redshift in such stars can be produced chemically through Stark effects 6th, we noted that the shifts of metallic lines do not support the results obtained with hydrogen lines. As a result, astronomers have moved the origin of the troublesome metallic lines off the surface of the white dwarfs Seven, we have noted today that white doors provide the only means for main sequence stars to cool in the standard model, and the gymnastics involved are far from reasonable. Main sequence stars must be allowed to cool by moving down the sequence Nothing more complicated is required except when the proponents of the standard model trying to tell us that stars have negative heat capacities. 8th, it is unreasonable to require the presence of hyperdense white dwarfs in order to make a supernova. All that is required is the rapid expansion Of an unstable intercalate region in an ordinary star. In the end, when we are examining white dwarfs, we are dealing with ordinary densities and altered lattice structure, possibly as a result of ejected solar cores or supernova remnants Ultra dance objects simply do not exist in astrophysics. The demise of ultra dense white dwarves also calls into questions other postulated ultra dense objects, including black holes. This is because such objects are all based on the belief that stars are ideal gases with negative heat capacities The mechanism for cooling such stars in the standard model is unreasonable. Once again, stars have positive heat capacities and main sequence stars should cool by moving down the sequence in the HR diagram. They do not execute the wild gymnastics proposed in the standard model The same will be true for more massive stars believed to collapse into a black hole in order to deal with their negative heat capacities.