Unlike GR theory, the LCDM model grossly violates the conservation of energy laws of physics.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

FYI, I have in fact gotten several papers published in an effort to 'do my part', but I can't force the mainstream to read them anymore than I can force them to read Birkeland's work, or Alfven's work, or Peratt's work, or anything they don't wish to deal with.

Yes, you've mentioned it before. Did it occur to you that the reason your papers didn't go viral in the community might be that, rather than the community being blinkered or a closed club, your work simply wasn't as useful, or didn't do as good a job as the current ideas, or was simply wrong?

 

[SelfSim]

Then, of course, there's Michael's latest paper which elaborated on his LIGO delusion.
'Twas not surprising that it was well-and-truly booted, when he attempted to get it published.
Then, (quite independently of course), LIGO demonstrated EM counterparts for the neutron star merger discovery, which highlghted his ideologically based mumbo-jumbo.
(The same mumbo-jumbo led to his now infamous "1=0.5" outcome on the sigma figure sub-topic, too).

 

[sjastro]

Who cares about your question when you won't deal with mine? What does any of this have to do with your law break dark energy genie, or your space expansion gnomes?

How utterly ridiculous to impose conditions on giving an answer when you seem to be blissfully unaware of already providing one using Marmet's theory which I pointed out was irrelevant.
And you wander why you are considered inept when you provide example after example.

The worst part of your response is the fact that you neglected to notice that in *plasma* not all electrons are "in atoms" to start with. Sheesh. No wonder we're still wallowing around in the dark ages of physics. The rest of your post isn't even applicable to free electrons in plasma to start with, or free proton either for that matter since they're related to *solids*, not plasma! Oy Vey.

I have lost count the number of times you have put your foot in your mouth, this is the latest one added to your list.
There is a very good reason why 500 keV photons were used because it exceeds the first ionization energies of all atoms. Ionization produces free electrons.

In Wikipedia is a reference to Compton's original experiment.

In Compton's original experiment, the energy of the X ray photon (≈17 keV) was very much larger than the binding energy of the atomic electron, so the electrons could be treated as being free.

Your ineptness is further compounded by the fact you don't seem to realise the scattering medium in Marmet's paper is hydrogen gas not plasma. Unless of course you want to argue that hydrogen gas and plasma are the same thing in which case we now have the physics version of your 1=0.5 fiasco.

I noticed how you have chickened out on explaining how one gets Bremsstrahlung radiation from a stationary electron that refuses to budge when the scattering angle of the photon is zero degrees.
The irony is this is a violation of the conservation of energy in a local frame of reference.

 

[Michael]

Yes, you've mentioned it before. Did it occur to you that the reason your papers didn't go viral in the community might be that, rather than the community being blinkered or a closed club, your work simply wasn't as useful, or didn't do as good a job as the current ideas, or was simply wrong?

Sure I've considered it, but I've also seen and read their so called "criticisms" of EU/PC models. Typically they don't even take the time or make the effort to understand them in the first place. It's not just *my* papers that they ignore and don't understand, it's pretty much every single paper that was ever written by Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner, Charles Bruce, Kristian Birkeland, etc. They're literally so ignorant of these topics that they believe the EU/PC solar models predict 'no neutrinos'. Oy Vey.

 

[Michael]

Then, of course, there's Michael's latest paper which elaborated on his LIGO delusion.
'Twas not surprising that it was well-and-truly booted, when he attempted to get it published.

I had no illusions about the fact it was unlikely to see the light of publishing day. The momentum by that point was off scale already.

Then, (quite independently of course), LIGO demonstrated EM counterparts for the neutron star merger discovery, which highlghted his ideologically based mumbo-jumbo.

I hate to break it to you, but that *one* example of multimessenger astronomy doesn't make up for the BH-BH merger claim problems, particularly their blatant double standard as it relates to cause. Every other potential cause of those signals was eliminated based on a lack of external corroboration, whereas they gave their own claims a free pass.

I still lack belief that those previous claims had anything at all to do with gravitational waves or black holes.

(The same mumbo-jumbo led to his now infamous "1=0.5" outcome on the sigma figure sub-topic, too).

This kind of willful misrepresentation of fact simply demonstrates your industry's complete lack of ethics, along with your bogus claims about EU/PC solar models predicting "no neutrinos", and that nonsense in the first LIGO paper about "there were no vetoes present within an hour of the signal". Sheesh. And you wonder why nobody in the EU/PC community believes you anymore.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You are correct in fact energy is not even conserved for curved spacetime under static conditions.

From a mathematical view point:
The Einstein Field Equations are defined as:

The two important terms for energy conservation (or the lack of it) are the g(uv) and T(uv) terms in the equations.
g(uv) are the coefficients of the metric tensor that define the geometry of spacetime.
For example in the metric that defines flat spacetime ds²=c²dt²- dx²- dy²- dz², the coefficients of g(uv) are g(00)=1, g(11)=g(22)=g(33)=-1

The T(uv) tensor term in the right hand side of the equation defines the energy matter tensor.
If energy is conserved then its partial derivative with respect to time is zero.

Here lies the problem in 2D flat space (which can be generalised to higher dimensions) using Cartesian coordinates the partial derivative is defined by:

In this case the direction of the projection vector as h approaches zero is unchanging hence we can define the partial derivative.

In curved space however the definition does not work as the projection vector does change direction.
This can be illustrated by the change of a projection vector as it moves along the arcs on the surface of a sphere.

The concept of the derivative in curved space needs to be redefined which factors in the changes in the projection vectors.
In this case we need to calculate the partial derivatives of the metric tensor components which define the geometry of the spacetime in which the projection vectors change.

Without going in specific details which would require a detailed knowledge of tensor analysis the derivative of a tensor known as the covariant derivative is defined as:

The left hand side of the equation is the covariant operator applied to a vector v.
The first term on the right hand side is the normal partial derivative of the vector, the next term contains information how the metric tensor components g(uv) change by calculating their partial derivatives which impacts on changes to the projection vector.

The operator in the second term is known as a Christoffel symbol and is defined as

When the covariant operator is applied to the energy matter tensor T(uv) and assuming the covariant derivative is zero we obtain the following result.

Now we have a “problem”.
As shown previously the conservation law applies when the partial derivative (the first term) equals zero.
This is not an issue with flat static space since all the g(uv) coefficients are constant and their partial derivatives vanish, in which case the second term is zero.
The second term doesn’t vanish for curved spacetime nor for expanding spacetime even when flat since the g(uv) coefficients are now time dependant and have non vanishing terms with respect to the time derivative.

There is a physical reason why energy is not conserved under these conditions.
Since GR is a non linear theory for gravity unlike Newtonian gravity, not only does mass contribute to the mass energy but as you pointed out so does the gravitational field.
Energy is not conserved as energy can be exchanged between mass and the corresponding gravitational fields.

This was recognized by Einstein and Hilbert well before the advent of Big Bang cosmology.

GR/SR is a cluster, at best, of confusion. It is a great way to "upgrade" the conceptual understanding of particles in reference frames of space.

The connection is needed to determine how space-time contracts, and this connection is not a tensor. It is used to complete the rate of change along a supposed geodesic.

GR still has some gross negligent in concepts; energy still "leaks" out. The curvature of space-time is treated as a potential vector for particles travelling - and depending on the metric, would need to have a warp factor added to it.

QTFL is actually a bit more refined in how to describe the dynamics of the universe. No new mass is needed; recognizing every single action (mathematical and metaphysical) is a result of wave motion. Matter becomes topological surfaces, and the "geodesic" is a combination of field energy producing certain "energetically agreed upon" paths for particles It explains why a globule of mass can seem to maintain density despite the geometry of the alleged universe. Field interactions are all that is needed for the explanation of the universe - since field interactions are all that are needed for this planet.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

One more thing: it is important for your map to be affine.


Some maps on this planet aren't even affine (at the very least, the geometry of Earth is not affine at the poles.) This causes problems when one needs to not only preserve geometry, but also needs to preserve the energy associated with the geometry itself.

In other words, it seems like academia may be trying to square a circle by trying to explain the affinity of space-time through new forms of energy yet undetermined.

 

[SelfSim]

Seeing as Michael has now defeated his own GR vs LCDM argument by demonstrating his misunderstanding in how it is the non-linearity inherent to GR theory, (and not some add-on to LCDM), which allows for the non-conservation of energy in curved space, it would seem this thread is over.
As usual, his shoot-from-the-hip 'lab-tested' cherry-picked argument (Marmet's scattering/Bremmstrahlung idea), being inappropriately invoked as an alternative to spacetime expansion/cause of redshift, has also been shown as being incorrect, (both theoretically and empirically), and also irrelevant to Michael's overall argument. There are other posters in this forum who also use this flawed argument.

'Twould be nice to see Michael move forward with the enlightenment provided him in this thread ... (I guess one should not hold one's breath in anticipation however ).

It never ceases to amaze me how threads like this serve to contrast the vast differences such insights have for each of us going forward.

 

[Michael]

I have lost count the number of times you have put your foot in your mouth, this is the latest one added to your list.
There is a very good reason why 500 keV photons were used because it exceeds the first ionization energies of all atoms. Ionization produces free electrons.

Free electrons in *what* medium? You didn't even cite a source for that graph as far as I know. Did I miss it, or did you just toss it out as "gospel" without explaining anything about it?

In Wikipedia is a reference to Compton's original experiment.

They could be "treated" as being "free"? What does that mean in solids? We're talking about *plasma* particles ultimately and the fact that they do experience brumsstralung, which you refuse to even take into consideration.

Your ineptness....

Man is that amusing coming from a guy that's relying on 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, and 5 percent pseudoscience. Worse yet, that so called 'explanation' (which is a non explanation) utterly *violates* the known laws of physics. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be anymore inept than that when it comes to explaining events in space. You're right up there with dad in terms of simply tossing out the parts of physics that you don't like.

is further compounded by the fact you don't seem to realise the scattering medium in Marmet's paper is hydrogen gas not plasma.

Space isn't just filled with "gas" however, and even in Marmet's thin 'gas' scenario, the electron is not necessarily even bound to the proton the moment it's hit by the photon.

Don't even get me started about your industry's complete incapacity to use proper terms when describing gas and plasma:

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

You call hot plasma a "hot gas". You refer to Birkeland currents as "space slinky's" and "Steve". Please! You have no right to complain about anyone else in regards to the improper use of scientific terms. Hell, you're still using *pseudoscience* to describe events inside of a current sheet, *decades* after Alfven's double layer paper made that whole concept irrelevant and obsolete in *all current carrying environments*. Not only that, you're ignoring the electric field and the circuity that makes the current sheet possible in the first place! Sheesh.

Unless of course you want to argue that hydrogen gas and plasma are the same thing in which case we now have the physics version of your 1=0.5 fiasco.

You're just showing your complete lack of ethics in debate. I never made any such claim and you both know it. The fact you keep making that up only put you right up there with the folks that claim that EU/PC solar models are predicted to emit "no neutrinos". You have no ethics whatsoever.

I noticed how you have chickened out on explaining how one gets Bremsstrahlung radiation from a stationary electron that refuses to budge when the scattering angle of the photon is zero degrees.

Who said it would be stationary? Is that another one of your made up claims I presume? Marmet explained the q=0 interaction to you if you had bothered to read it, which apparently you didn't.

The irony is this is a violation of the conservation of energy in a local frame of reference.

Not at all. I'm not claiming there was no interaction between the electron and the photon as you seem to be assuming.

The irony is that you would even bother to blame me for your own irrational claim, or even condemn anyone else for doing exactly what you're actually doing on a cosmic scale. You can't even explain where "dark energy" comes from, let alone explain how it magically retains constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. It's the ultimate "supernatural" form of energy, and it's a complete violation of the known laws of physics. You're just burying yourself.

 

[Michael]

Seeing as Michael has now defeated his own GR vs LCDM argument by demonstrating his misunderstanding in how it is the non-linearity inherent to GR theory, (and not some add-on to LCDM), which allows for the non-conservation of energy in curved space, it would seem this thread is over.

Unless you can demonstrate that we live in a globally curved space, you've shown nothing that *requires* GR to violate any laws of physics in any *real universe* conditions. In fact it does *not* violate the conservation of energy laws in *any physics experiment in any lab*!

Apparently all you have is a very bad case of special pleading and nothing even remotely resembling empirical evidence that energy is not conserved in any actual experiment, or any *real* universe.

As usual, his shoot-from-the-hip 'lab-tested' cherry-picked argument (Marmet's scattering/Bremmstrahlung idea), being inappropriately invoked as an alternative to spacetime expansion/cause of redshift, has also been shown as being incorrect,

Where? When? You're apparently making that up by assigning *yourselves* as some sort of authority when no such authority has been demonstrated. 95 percent of your belief systems are placeholder terms for human ignorance. Some authority.

(both theoretically and empirically),

Huh? When? How?

and also irrelevant to Michael's overall argument.

You're right about that part. You two just hijacked the thread because you have no evidence that GR violates the conservation of energy laws in any experiment and you have no evidence that the universe is curved at the largest scales. For all anyone knows it's a flat, infinite universe that obeys conservation of energy laws everywhere.

There are other posters in this forum who also use this flawed argument.

I think only dad violates the laws of physics as bad as you two do. I'm not sure even dad is violating the conservation of energy laws however.

'Twould be nice to see Michael move forward with the enlightenment provided him in this thread ...

Enlightenment? Bwahahahahahaha! You can't even name a single source of "dark energy". You can't explain how or why it would retain constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. You won't even touch that issue with a 10 foot pole, so you hijacked another thread, and you have the nerve to call that "enlightenment"? You're a false guru.

(I guess one should not hold one's breath in anticipation however ).

Likewise I won't hold my breath waiting for you two to actually deal with the topic, explain dark energy, or explain how it magically violates the known laws of physics.

It never ceases to amaze me how threads like this serve to contrast the vast differences such insights have for each of us going forward.

Insights? What insights did you offer me related to the actual *topic* of your space expansion genie and your dark energy faeries? You didn't even discuss them in fact. You avoided them like the plague, just as I figured you would.

Why in the world would I assume that electrons in space don't experience the same types of energy emissions processes in space as we observe them to experience here on Earth?
Radioactivity : Bremsstrahlung
I think Marmet has your number. I think you simply forgot a very important issue when it comes to forward scattering processes in plasma, and the net loss of energy to the medium.

No laws of energy conservation are violated in tired light proposals. In each case the momentum loss of the photon is simply transferred to the plasma medium or emitted in some form or another. In no instance does any conservation laws have to be violated.

Only in your *magical* dark energy, space expanding universe does that become necessary, and only because you have a bad case of special pleading. It's a *law* of physics in the lab, but it doesn't apply to you and dad evidently.

 

[Michael]

GR still has some gross negligent in concepts; energy still "leaks" out. The curvature of space-time is treated as a potential vector for particles travelling - and depending on the metric, would need to have a warp factor added to it.

You're right of course, but it does largely depend on how GR is *abused* or not. For instance, "space expansion" isn't a 'requirement" in GR, nor is "dark energy", nor is the existence of exotic forms of matter. GR is dependent upon the legitimacy of none of these claims. LCMD is an absolute kludge of a "blunder" theory that simply makes GR look bad, but it's really not the fault of GR, it's the fault of those who abuse those formulas. That's also true of "magnetic reconnection" theory. It's a pseudo scientific kludge of an otherwise fine set of formulas.

I believe that QM will eventually replace GR to describe gravity, but I'm fine with GR for now without all the supernatural add-ons. GR doesn't violate any conservation of energy laws in the lab, or anywhere else in the real universe.

 

[sjastro]

They could be "treated" as being "free"? What does that mean in solids? We're talking about *plasma* particles ultimately and the fact that they do experience brumsstralung, which you refuse to even take into consideration.

Space isn't just filled with "gas" however, and even in Marmet's thin 'gas' scenario, the electron is not necessarily even bound to the proton the moment it's hit by the photon.

Who said it would be stationary? Is that another one of your made up claims I presume? Marmet explained the q=0 interaction to you if you had bothered to read it, which apparently you didn't.

For crying out loud try reading his paper instead of inserting your nonsense ideas into it.
Marmet is very explicit about the mechanism.

When an atom absorbs a wave train (photon), the total momentum is conserved and therefore must appear within the atom. The electron is therefore accelerated due to the momentum transfer from the photon to the mobile electron.

This is Compton scattering, part of the photon energy ionizes the hydrogen gas resulting in the formation of mobile electrons which any chemist or physicist will tell you are unbonded electrons.
The mobile or unbonded electrons then recoil and accelerate which result in bremsstrahlung radiation.
And if electrons happen to be free, Marmet states they are stationary before scattering in keeping with the definition of Compton scattering.

However, the electron is accelerated during the scattering. In order to illustrate the basic principle leading to an energy loss due to bremsstrahlung, let us examine the case of 90o Compton scattering on a free electron which is initially at rest. The photon momentum transferred to the electron is such that the collision imparts motion to it. Since the electron, initially at rest, becomes in motion after the impact, somehow it must have been accelerated.

Stop wasting everyone's time, its clearly beyond your capacity in defending Marmet given you have zero comprehension of the paper particularly in your inability in being able to explain why a zero scattering angle leads to electron recoil.
Here's something else to mull over if the Universe is infinitely old and the ionization of hydrogen gas leads to plasma then why does atomic and molecular hydrogen gas still exist in the Universe?

 

[sjastro]

GR/SR is a cluster, at best, of confusion. It is a great way to "upgrade" the conceptual understanding of particles in reference frames of space.

The connection is needed to determine how space-time contracts, and this connection is not a tensor. It is used to complete the rate of change along a supposed geodesic.

GR still has some gross negligent in concepts; energy still "leaks" out. The curvature of space-time is treated as a potential vector for particles travelling - and depending on the metric, would need to have a warp factor added to it.

QTFL is actually a bit more refined in how to describe the dynamics of the universe. No new mass is needed; recognizing every single action (mathematical and metaphysical) is a result of wave motion. Matter becomes topological surfaces, and the "geodesic" is a combination of field energy producing certain "energetically agreed upon" paths for particles It explains why a globule of mass can seem to maintain density despite the geometry of the alleged universe. Field interactions are all that is needed for the explanation of the universe - since field interactions are all that are needed for this planet.

Your description has a vague similarity to the ADM formalism for mass and energy.
ADM energy is only conserved if the metric exists in a Killing vector field and is asymptotically flat in which case it has a time translation symmetry resulting in energy conservation according to Noether's theorem.
However in any expanding cosmology such as the Big Bang or Steady State models there is no associated Killing vector field as the metric tensors are time dependant and do not have a time translation symmetry resulting in energy not being conserved.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Your description has a vague similarity to the ADM formalism for mass and energy.
ADM energy is only conserved if the metric exists in a Killing vector field and is asymptotically flat in which case it has a time translation symmetry resulting in energy conservation according to Noether's theorem.
However in any expanding cosmology such as the Big Bang or Steady State models there is no associated Killing vector field as the metric tensors are time dependant and do not have a time translation symmetry resulting in energy not being conserved.

The topology is not affine; that would be the main reason why there no constant parameter. The universe is allegedly expanding, but it still has finite, varying volume (even if its surface is infinite.) There is no mapping of the universe that would produce a linear transformation.

The topology is nonconformal, and there is no linear map. That is why the killing field wont be found in theory. And, we cannot determine the dependency of the parameters of the universe since it changes too quickly, and we really only have an assumed/approximated origin point (not necessarily that it matters, but it matters here.) But topological field theory provides a better model for GR/SR, because it can account for kernels of torsion.

 

[Michael]

For crying out loud try reading his paper instead of inserting your nonsense ideas into it.
Marmet is very explicit about the mechanism.

LOL! Yes he is very explicit about the mechanism which you seem to utterly reject out of hand.

The amusing part of this conversation is that you're sure you can just ignore the effects of bremsstrahlung, something we observe in the lab, just so you can introduce a claim that violates the laws of physics!

This conversation went down pretty much as I expected. You tried to avoid the fact that you're violating the laws of conservation of energy based on nothing more than a bad case of special pleading. You're engaging in personal attacks *as usual* simply to avoid the fact that your violation of those laws is without precedent, without merit, and without logic. A very simple, and laboratory confirmed process can easily replace both your space expansion claims *and* your dark energy nonsense, all in one fell swoop, eliminating any need to violate any laws of physics.

Like dad however, you're emotionally (and professionally in your case) attached to pure supernatural *dogma* which A) has no precedent in the lab, B) isn't logical, and C) isn't necessary in the first place.

You're the one wasting everyone's time because you're not even interested in learning about any logical alternatives to violation of conservation of energy laws in the first place, and you keep hijacking the threads away from the topic, and onto the individual in a desperate attempt to deflect the conversation away from your serious case of cognitive dissonance.

Here's something else to mull over if the Universe is infinitely old and the ionization of hydrogen gas leads to plasma then why does atomic and molecular hydrogen gas still exist in the Universe?

It's still ionized because it's constantly being ionized by *current*, like the current the flows from the sun to the heliosphere, and like the current which flows all throughout the universe and heats all that plasma to *millions* of degrees around our own galaxy and throughout the universe. Since you're in pure denial of that continuous flow of current in space, you're puzzled by the *easiest* things in the universe to explain, starting with the sun's full sphere "hot" corona, and that million degree plasma they found around our own galaxy about 5 years ago.

This thread clearly demonstrates why your industry is stuck in the dark ages of physics. You wont' even *discuss* the problems in your own model, even when they literally violate the known laws of physics, and even when there are "better" explanations available which do not violate any laws of physics.

 

[sjastro]

The topology is not affine; that would be the main reason why there no constant parameter. The universe is allegedly expanding, but it still has finite, varying volume (even if its surface is infinite.) There is no mapping of the universe that would produce a linear transformation.

The topology is nonconformal, and there is no linear map. That is why the killing field wont be found in theory. And, we cannot determine the dependency of the parameters of the universe since it changes too quickly, and we really only have an assumed/approximated origin point (not necessarily that it matters, but it matters here.) But topological field theory provides a better model for GR/SR, because it can account for kernels of torsion.

This is not correct.

The Schwarzschild metric has a coordinate singularity at r=2MG/c², yet a Killing vector field exists as the metric coefficients are not functions of time.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating are the existence of planetary orbits (including Mercury’s perihelion advance) which are derived from the metric indicating that energy is conserved.
This is also a consequence of the metric being asymptotically flat.

 

[sjastro]

LOL! Yes he is very explicit about the mechanism which you seem to utterly reject out of hand.

It's still ionized because it's constantly being ionized by *current*, like the current the flows from the sun to the heliosphere, and like the current which flows all throughout the universe and heats all that plasma to *millions* of degrees around our own galaxy and throughout the universe. Since you're in pure denial of that continuous flow of current in space, you're puzzled by the *easiest* things in the universe to explain, starting with the sun's full sphere "hot" corona, and that million degree plasma they found around our own galaxy about 5 years ago.

I didn’t ask about the constancy of ionization did I.
I asked why atomic and hydrogen gas still exists?
Your complete failure of grasping what is a very simple question is symptomatic of your inability of being able to think for yourself.
The fact that you have to rely on an electric Sun model for your answer which has zero relevance is a case in point.

The same applies to your nonsensical and hysterical response regarding Marmet.
Evidently Marmet is right because I’m violating conservation laws of General Relativity, suffer from cognitive dissonance, have an emotional attachment to supernatural dogma or whatever other personal insult you want to hurl at me.
False dichotomies running amuck.

The harsh reality is you can’t see the problems in Marmet’s model because it is way beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

This is not correct.

The Schwarzschild metric has a coordinate singularity at r=2MG/c², yet a Killing vector field exists as the metric coefficients are not functions of time.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating are the existence of planetary orbits (including Mercury’s perihelion advance) which are derived from the metric indicating that energy is conserved.
This is also a consequence of the metric being asymptotically flat.

ok.

 

[SelfSim]

ok.

"ok"??????????? That's it: "ok" ????????????

If you were unsure of what you had to say in the first place, why did you assert it as fact? Why not be honest about it now, and admit that you didn't have your ducks lined up before you decided to shoot-from-the-hip?

The web is filled with voices who always think they're right but have never bothered to check their facts first, (and right here, we have yet another one)! Sheessh!

 

[Michael]

I didn’t ask about the constancy of ionization did I.
I asked why atomic and hydrogen gas still exists?

It exists because *electrical current* (in plasma pinches) releases free neutrons from various elements all the time!

[astro-ph/0511379] The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation

IMO neutrons are the primordial form of matter, and they decay back into protons and electrons over time. The end up being "reformed again" in neutron stars.

Your complete failure of grasping what is a very simple question is symptomatic of your inability of being able to think for yourself.

Irony overload. Apparently you've never read any of my *published* work.

arXiv.org Search

You'll note that we routinely observe the release free neutrons in z-machine experiments too which of course decay into protons and electrons and neutrinos in about 10 minutes. I'm sure it occurs in the Earth's atmosphere all the time, and it's *certainly* occurring in coronal loop activity and various plasma pinch processes all throughout the sun.

The fact that you have to rely on an electric Sun model for your answer which has zero relevance is a case in point.

That's an absolute riot considering the fact that 100 years after Birkeland explained it to you, and simulated it in his lab, you *still* can't explain the heat source of the sun's corona, let alone simulate a full sphere sustained corona in a real experiment. Birkeland's cathode solar model is as relevant today as it's ever been, even more so after your beloved standard solar model was falsified by SDO data over five years ago now.

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

Are you folks ever going to fix your ridiculously broken piece of junk solar model now that we know that your convection predictions were *way* off, two whole orders of magnitude off in fact? Then again, you're probably in denial of that fact, much like your industry is in pure denial of all those dark matter lab failures, and the huge errors in your baryonic mass estimates.

The same applies to your nonsensical and hysterical response regarding Marmet.
Evidently Marmet is right because I’m violating conservation laws of General Relativity,

No, he's right because that type of radiation is *common place* in the lab, and therefore in space too. Anytime you have moving charged particles interacting with EM fields, they lose energy. You forgot to include basic physical processes in plasma.

I have no problem with GR, just your introduction of "Space expansions" gnomes and energy conservation violating dark energy faeries in your *blunder* theory. GR is fine.

.....suffer from cognitive dissonance, have an emotional attachment to supernatural dogma or whatever other personal insult you want to hurl at me.
False dichotomies running amuck.

Considering the fact that your whole debate style is based on *pure personal attack*, you really have thin skin.

The harsh reality is you can’t see the problems in Marmet’s model because it is way beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension.

Projection at it's finest. You're so stuck in your dogma, you can't see the utter absurdity of leaving out a very important element in charged particle collisions and movement, and the ordinary loss of energy that occurs both in the lab and in space.

You'd rather pull a "dad" and just toss the laws of physics out the window simply because you can't handle reality, and it's beyond your intellectual capacity to *think for yourself*!