My theory of the universe

[swansont]

I'm a bit confused about the second part of your post. Are you asserting that the mass of a black hole or neutron star would be equal to 99.5% of the mass of the star from which it formed?

 

Not at all. I'm saying that fusion does not convert much mass, compared to the mass of the star, into energy. The mass lost by a star happens via other processes. Your stated reason is wrong: as it has burned off its fuel mass. "Burned" is typically used to describe the fusion process, not the matter ejection various stars undergo late in life, and you specifically stated "fuel" which removes any ambiguity.

 

If you had said "blown off much of its mass" it would have been fine, but the two statements are not interchangeable.

[swansont]

What i meant to say is theories on the origin of stars are inconclusive' date=' and the process of fusion does not aptly explain how exactly they came to be.

[/quote']

 

What is lacking in the fusion explanation?

[grey arms]

Not at all. I'm saying that fusion does not convert much mass' date=' compared to the mass of the star, into energy. The mass lost by a star happens via other processes. Your stated reason is wrong: [i']as it has burned off its fuel mass[/i]. "Burned" is typically used to describe the fusion process, not the matter ejection various stars undergo late in life, and you specifically stated "fuel" which removes any ambiguity.

 

If you had said "blown off much of its mass" it would have been fine, but the two statements are not interchangeable.

 

I'll agree with you to a point. However, you merely talked about the conversion of hydrogen to helium, which although accounts for the process during the longest part of a star's lifespan, does not account for all the material that is "burned up" (again i apologise for the ambiguity). Particularly in large stars, toward the end of the life cycle the star's temperature increases dramatically at which point the fusion of helium and heavier elements occurs. In fact, a supernova is the result of such heavy fusion processes (coupled with strong gravitational forces). In supermassive stars even silicon and iron are products of fusion. It is the relatively short period in which this fusion (and the resulting supernova) occurs that a star loses most of its mass.

 

Technicalities aside, the point is a star loses far more mass in its lifetime than a black hole of relative size is likely to gain.

[grey arms]

What is lacking in the fusion explanation?

 

Like i mentioned before, fusion is what sustains a star once formed. The formation process is a little more complex. Nebulae form stars when they experience a gravitational collapse. The difficult part is ascertaining what causes such a collapse. Some theories attribute it to the explosions of other stars nearby. But its evident that there are stars that have formed in almost complete isolation. Granted, herme3's explanation sheds little light on the situation, but i would be wary of labelling this one case closed.

[mezarashi]

I feel sorry for Herme3 a bit. Alot of the responses I've seen on this thread dismiss his "theory" is simply because they didn't understand it to begin with thinking it was flawed. Actually it sounds very feasible, just that the concept of parallel universes is not easily conceivable, and I still find it odd to say there must be two out of the blue. I think it's pretty interesting to propose, but you just can't deny the existing knowledge of fusion which already well explains stars and where they are deriving their energy from. If they are getting free energy from another universe, then why the loss in mass of the star as it "burns".

 

On the explanation of "WHY" stars form. I think that's a question of like... why was there an earthquake in Japan last week, or why did that solar flare happen. It simply happens because conditions are right just as random as it may seem. I believe NASA has extensive knowledge of these conditions through experimental observation, and star formation is not as big of a secret as it may have been.

[swansont]

I'll agree with you to a point. However' date=' you merely talked about the conversion of hydrogen to helium, which although accounts for the process during the longest part of a star's lifespan, does not account for all the material that is "burned up" (again i apologise for the ambiguity). Particularly in large stars, toward the end of the life cycle the star's temperature increases dramatically at which point the fusion of helium and heavier elements occurs. In fact, a supernova is the result of such heavy fusion processes (coupled with strong gravitational forces). In supermassive stars even silicon and iron are products of fusion. It is the relatively short period in which this fusion (and the resulting supernova) occurs that a star loses most of its mass.

 

Technicalities aside, the point is a star loses far more mass in its lifetime than a black hole of relative size is likely to gain.[/quote']

 

Still, the mass lost to fusion is still small. Even going all the way to Fe-56, you lose about 0.5 amu out of 56, or a little less than 1%. Much, much more mass is lost from ejection. You have to treat these separately.

[grey arms]

Still, the mass lost to fusion is still small. Even going all the way to Fe-56, you lose about 0.5 amu out of 56, or a little less than 1%. Much, much more mass is lost from ejection. You have to treat these separately.

 

I'll make a point of it in future.

[quick silver]

it doesn't seem like your theory could work out....... but, black holes being worm holes to another dimension is something that you should look into.

 

my theory on using black holes as worm hole is as follows: if you desablize the gravataional pull enough, just to slow it down. you May be able to see the very middle of a black hole. electromagnitsm. have the ship traveling inside of it would need a strong magnetic feild. a fission generator powering the electromagnet might work. if it uses the gases around it. since most atoms or all can be broken down in that manner.

 

since this is just my theory. don't hold me to it.

[Edisonian]

I think this is a very interesting theory. It does not seem possible that every star somehow has a wormhole that connects it to a black hole, does it?