Galaxies and star formation

[sunspot]

There is two reasonable theories for galaxies; one has a black hole at the center of a galaxy and another which has neutron density. Both present good arguments with the neutron density theory better able to account for the continued formation of stars in a galaxy center.

 

There is a third alternative. The fusion reaction is highly exothermic, meaning that once initiated the fusion reaction would like to go forward and continue to expand. Fusion is loosely analogous to a fire spreading. In this case, the fusion fire burns mass, with the analogus products of combustion being atomic nuclei. The more fuel one can pump into the fire the hotter it will burn.

 

Picture this, in the center of our galaxy, fusion begins to expand and spread until geometry prevents it from getting any larger inspite of the backlog of fuel. The result are fusion eddies appearing. The fusion eddies form because they increase the surface area for fusion. The result are the formation of stars.

 

If one was to take a match into a tainted air bathroom, in a matter of seconds, the foul gases will diffuse to the flame and become neutralized. This implies that fire can set a potential within the environment that can pull in fuel faster than can be explained with random collisions or convection. The same is probably true for fusion and even more so due to its tremendous release of energy. The result of the fusion eddies is an ever increasing potential to pull hydrogen fuel into the spreading fusion fire. The result will appear to be an amplified source of high gravity in the center of the galaxy due to the fusion potential acting on the surrounding hydrogen. Or the hydrogen attraction in the center of a galaxy is due to both gravity and fusion potential.

[Klaynos]

Surely all this fusion would be kicking out MASSIVE amounts of EM radiation that our telescopes would be picking up?

[[Tycho?]]

So you are explaining an entity which emits virtually no radiation by saying its a huge mass of fusing hydrogen? I think you need to explain this again.

[insane_alien]

fusing hydrogen on a stellar scale is amazingly obvious. just look up into the night sky and you'll see hydrogen fusing all over the place even without a telescope.

[sunspot]

If we look at a star, the fusion occurs in the center of the star. What we see is energy output that has filtered through tens of thousands of miles of dense plasma, composed of the periodic table of the elements. The surface temperature alone tells us that fusion does not occur on the surface, such that exit emissions are due to a wide variety of interactions with other phenomena. Why can't stella fusion be highly effecient, such that there is little waste beyond waste heat. Human fusion, like H-bombs, is not as effecient and may not represent what is going on in the center of a star.

 

A friend once told me a story about how his grandfather used to make Armenian moonshine. His father took over the family tradition after the Grandfather died. But his father's moonshine was not the same. When one would burn his grandfather's it would give off a nice blue flame. But when one burnt his father's it would burn yellow and give off smoke.

 

When a star is young, its fuel is primarily hydrogen/electrons. This is the highest octane fuel and burns very effeciently. As higher atoms begin to accumulate, the hydrogen needs to increasingly filter through this dense core continuum putting a diffusion limit on the rate of hydrogen fusion. A young star, with pleniful hydrogen can make fusion eddies due to high octane fusion fuel backlog. With the accumulating heavy atom barrier, stars can no longer make fusion eddies, because the rate of fusion reaches steady state.

[insane_alien]

i know that you can't see the fusion directly but you can see the energy it gives off after it is reemitted at the surface. octane numbers are usless when refering to fusion. fusion is a nuclear process while octane numbers refer to the combustion of alkanes. young stars do have a fusion limit but it is because of the density(or lack thereof) and temperature that constrains it, not heavier atoms although these do play a role in the last stages of the stars life.

[sunspot]

I used octane as an analogy. Nitromethane seemed confusing. Fusing hydrogen gives us the most umph pound for pound. This would suggest the hottest region within the center with a lowering octane value as we move from center. What we see in the surface may quite be output from less efficient areas of fusion farther from the hydrogen center. The temperature profile is assumed sort of continuous to the surface with temp falling with distance from center. The smallest particle fusion in center makes sense for three reasons. First it has the highest potential and second being smallest allows it the most freedom to diffuse through a dense environment. Thirdly, one often forgets to take into consideration the effects of temp and pressure. Higher atoms should fission down as they approach center as heavy nuclei interact and should maintain stability only at lower pressure and temp.

[Klaynos]

So, what hapens to the massive ammounts of EM radiation given out at the centre of this fusion reactor?

[Ophiolite]

May I applaud you most sincerely sunspot. Most crank posters have a chosen field of insanity, but I see you are pursuing nonsense in astrophysics, geophysics and evolution on separate threads. Quite a different level of delusion from the normal. Very refreshing. Do keep it up. Perhaps a foray into missing elements in the periodic table next? May I ask in passing if you are privy to any of the meetings of the Illuminati?

[insane_alien]

octane value still doesn't work. its like saying gravity is at defcon 2. absurd and pointless