The Alternative To Cosmic Ray Powered Stars


The Alternative to Cosmic Ray Powered Stars

by Chris Freely

While creating the cosmic ray powered stars, galaxies, and universe model years ago I had to seriously consider alternative thoughts with regard to our current model, the fusion powered solar paradigm.  I considered the implications of expansion theory in this in order to complete the work began by Mark McCutcheon and to seriously consider whether there were any scenarios under which a universe could exist powered on hydrogen fusion as envisioned by our current ideas.

The model that I developed I called the Hydrogen Regeneration Hydrogen Fusion Universe was based on the idea that hydrogen, if it were possible to generate fusion energy from true proton-proton fusion, would be recycled in this type of universe.  While I ultimately rejected this idea for reasons described below, a basic overview will show the most plausible mechanisms in my understanding of Expansion Theory that might explain our current solar paradigms using the new theory.

In proton-proton fusion as it is currently envisioned through various steps in different types of main sequence stars, four protons combine to form a helium nucleus.  The difference in the mass of four hydrogen atoms and one helium atom is then assumed to be released in the form of energy through Einstein's E=MC^2 equation automatically liberating the energy.  A star is theoretically supported by the force of the fusion of protons that take place in the star's nucleus.  A balance then is created between the amount of fusion necessary to keep the star's current size and gravity which is constantly driving this process.  This is visioned as a dynamic equilibrium in current models.

The question must be asked, where does the energy to propel the liberated missing mass from the protons in the proton-proton fusion reactions come from?  In our current theories there is essentially no answer.  E=MC^2 automatically applies for some reason no one has clearly defined and that no one can clearly explain.  McCutcheon's expansion theory offers a plausible solution to this dilemma as physical mechanisms may exist plausibly in our current hypothetical realms of the possible.

Mark, in his book though, stuck with a similar Einstein idea that simply said once the electrons (the basic particle of matter in the universe of which everything including protons and neutrons are made in the new theory) are released from their nuclear confinement they automatically just expand at a massive rate (because they are already doing so anyway within the atom) and are thus liberated as free energy.  This is similar to Einstein's idea though with a graphical representation of liberated electron clusters flying through non-atomic space at the huge non nuclear natural expansion rate of the electron in that the electron automatically has this energy built into it somehow without having to account for it in any way.  I couldn't agree to the idea in total because it denies the fact that energy is carried by these electrons as a function of their relative motion, which in physics analysis is called vector motion.

In my own analysis I found that the idea that freely expanding electron clusters carried huge energy difficult to digest in light of the problem of vector motion which I wrote about extensively in the analysis.  Essentially, the problem is that energy is still energy.  When things move they have an inertia and that energy is conserved and vector motion needs to be conserved if things aren't going to get too weird.  Freely expanding electron clusters, in my estimation, simply cannot be ejected from the nucleus and be expected to carry a massive energy automatically.  I could not visual this idea at all as it failed logical tests in my own mind concerning the ideas of energy.  Of course I accepted the idea of the clusters expansion, just not the free energy lunch part of it.

The alternative to this is to construct a mechanism within the nucleus to account for energy as it is classically understood (more or less).  In our case we would have to construct a model of the proton that would allow for the energy to be liberated through a mechanism similar to that of a spring.  A metal spring stores physical energy and a spring represents the best analogy to something that may, once it's pent up structure is unhinged, release stored physical energy in a manner that is consistent with latent buildup of pressure in structure.  If the hydrogen atom is so constructed, then indeed it would be possible to make such a process work assuming the energy contained in the structure in sufficient once liberated to account for what is required for the solar fusion model to work.  I have suggested that deuterium and tritium as well as other proven energetically releasing atoms and isotopes have some pent up structural mechanism at work that when broken releases this stored pressure within their structure.

In such a system, an energy storing mechanism would have to be constructed to account for why energy was stored in hydrogen in the first place.  The mechanism I decided on was cosmic ray bombardment of the heavy nuclei of deep space and old stellar cores.  These cosmic rays could reintroduce energy into what are (in current theory) considered to be energy poor nucleuses (from the point of view of current fusion theory), especially Iron and Cobalt which are considered in current theory to be the least energetic nucleuses for nuclear fusion (or fission for that matter).  Again, that all has to do with the amount of mass in the nucleus as measured relative to other nucleusus in the current E=MC^2 standard model paradigm.  But for our purposes what we are looking for as students of the new Expansion Theory is how hydrogen gets its extra energy that allows it to expel it's "energy per nucleon" into light in the form of electron clusters as the new theory states that light consists of.

This is explained hypothetically by the idea that cosmic rays impart changes in structure to the proton when they impact these large nucleusus in deep space breaking them apart and recharging the universal supply of hydrogen that gets used up in our current model by stars.  In a universe without a big bang you have to explain how it is that everything hasn't quite ended given the fact that all the hydrogen is constantly being used up.  So, obviously, over time, the cosmic rays have to reintroduce the energy back into the equation by evaporating large white dwarves and other old dead stellar cores in our current model slowly converting back into the original material that we currently think of as being the most important for energy generation.  That is, of course, hydrogen.

So we have a plausible physical mechanism of energy storage in hydrogen and a cycle that accounts for what we observe in the universe without resulting in any big bang shenanigans.  However, the problem now is the problem of the lack of a real physical model of the atom.  We don't have one yet.  And in addition, the bigger problem is that protons, as we understand them now, are just too simple of a structure to be structured in a way that suggests they could possibly store energy through a complex mechanism that allows for such a hypothetical pressure storage whether spring like or not.  The more complex deuterium and tritium don't have this problem.  And that creates a big pickle for the nuclear powered fusion model in the new Expansion Theory paradigm.

While I envisioned a proton as being made of huge numbers of electrons as described in my core essay, an idea strongly supported by existing physical experiments primarily Max Plank's, the simple number of electrons still isn't sufficient to account for the complexity suggested.  There is no current evidence of a complex hydrogen nucleus that suggest it could possibly store energy in such a manner.  Now, of course, no one has had to look for one yet, but still it would require a huge amount of research and thinking to suggest where we could go from here with this idea.  It goes against everything we think we know so far in that hydrogen is the simple nucleus consisting of a single proton and an single electron "probability" cloud.  Where would it hide a mechanism for the mechanical storage of energy?  Deuterium and tritium have at least a neutron or two and a proton that could overlap accounting for the stored energy, but what about the lowly proton? 

In this idea we consider the classical case for energy again as known physics suggests.  Energy is motion and vector motion is conserved so that energy outside the boundary of the expanding electron is real in this world.  It doesn't diminish so the universe is a mechanical machine made of expanding electrons and the ever present vector motion of these very electrons that are the carriers of this motion and are the transformers of it in space (again my core essay goes into the physical descriptions in great detail and what would properly be described as the physical philosophy of expanding matter and energy).

In order to support the idea of standard fusion in the new model mechanical energy must be stored in the hydrogen atom to account for the energy necessary to support stars as they are currently envisioned in the fusion model of stars.  No physical proof of these support structures exists.  No physical model exists.  No explanation that is based on real physics exist.  Our current stellar theories are a fantasy.  They have no basis in real science.  They have never been proven through extensive observation.  Constant new evidence is being discovered which discounts what is claimed in the finer points of current stellar theory.  And more new evidence will come to light exposing the weaknesses in current theory with each passing year.

Yet cosmic ray powered stars have a support mechanism that I have described vividly in complete physical detail down to a great extent.  That is a fact.

For those who wish to try and salvage the only thing that is possibly even remotely salvageable from convention cosmology, the fusion powered model of the star, I have given you all the tools necessary to find what it is you must be looking for.  Good luck.  And it would be delightful if you gave me some credit when you start down your thought experiments.  I was there first pointing you in the right direction.  May the best theory win in the light of the evidence of science.