With astronomers accepting the reality of repeating micro-novae, it would be interesting to look at the composition of those systems that experience them. It would tell us something about what to expect here at home.
mapping the Birkland currents of the Milkyway and it's paths through the intersteller and intergalatic space has to be the most vital and rewarding aspect of cosmology that astronomers could do.
It makes the most sense that elements were produced in-situ in stellar atmospheric electrical conditions. The notion that the Universe’s chemical constituents were made in stars by gravitational processes, then transported the absurdly huge distances at sublight speeds is insane.
Exactly. The materials are synthesized on the surface/atmosphere, where there is continuous electrical discharge. It is known that terrestrial lightning is enough to cause isotopic transformation of elements, including the observation of gamma radiation. The atmosphere of the sun is pure plasma and the lower, denser atmosphere is undergoing continuous "lightning." That's everything you need for nuclear synthesis, as we've observed on earth.
Fusion or molecular rearrangement takes place in electric currents in the photosphere or along other galactic currents that provide the necessary coherency or frequency to allow fusion to occur. X-ray or gamma implies nuclear rearrangement, infrared implies molecular rearrangement. For example, molecular arrangement occurs along the magnetosphere and magnetotail of comets to produce hydroxyls or even crude oil.
The electric filaments are observed in the lower photosphere using hydrogen alpha. 'Observing the Sun in Hydrogen Alpha' - By: Brian Ventrudo and Manish Panjwani August 17, 2016 Or EXPLORE THE NIGHT WITH BOB KING OBSERVER'S GUIDE TO THE H-ALPHA SUN BY: BOB KING SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 12
There is literally zero evidence to support that bs 12000 year model, if so why cant someone point out the layers in the grand canyon that correspond to this 12,000 year cycle
The abundance of heavy elements in the Universe is not supported by Supernova hypothesis, because the ratio of new-formed stars to supernova is 1/400,000,000. Supernova is an very rear exception (an cosmic accident) is not part of the recycling system of the Universe. Interesting details can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
True and let's hope it'll reach that level, although sadly facts are not popular among a public beholden by entertainment "cosmology"; only fairy tales and magic dust can do it.
I am imagining being inside the nucleus of an atom, or cell, and when looking from the inside out, only being able to see relatively close, and similarly active, structures/systems. The "physical" structure of space, and what it carries/collects, is invisable and dark, without special equipment. Awesome video 😄✌️
I'll stick with theory #4... The Sun goes Nova but not enough to push materials and ejecta outside of its own heliosphere... The idea of other stars imparting nova materials upon our system seems to fail as certain sun and nova created materials would not last as the dustances are too great, I cant recall the exact wording for it but basically their radioactive lifecycle would have passed away before reaching here, yet they are found here, secondly there aren't any stars close enough that have gone nova for these materials recently enough... A small nova or micronova event would increase the seen imbalance... I actually dont like these ideas that simply because we cant initially explain something we observe then it must be something far bigger as if we cant see the wood for the tree's...
@@P-B-G_YT Not mine but one that makes a more plausible theory based on things like the cyclically aligning geomagnetics, current reports of a greater amount of dust in our systems path that may be the accretion basis for a nova event, and we have the visible change of the sun looking white rather than the yellow flared sun seen until between the late 1970's onwards... I don't discount what can be sound theories or explanations and keep them in mind... If we thought of our solar system as an atom with it's own electrical charge and we then passed it through a differently charged dust cloud... I would expect a similar type of alteration to the ability to either gain increased charge or... Discharge... Just as we avoid differently charged storm clouds with aviation... I follow suspicious 0bservers and the usage of the sciences does to me, make for sound reasoning but we also do not have the same reported science over the past complete cycle around our galactic centre... A bag of salt and a bag of popcorn and we'll all see where it all leads to 😉👍
Seems that this is evidence of two things. A supernova is not an explosion but a rarefaction of the remnant plasma, leaving the remnant core behind. The matter is dragged out by the departure of the expanding remnant ionosphere after the input energy is terminated, AKA after the z-pinch is terminated. Poincare was right that Newtonian Gravity is backwards. Inertia and gravity and are side-effects of a Lorentz force in the ether medium. AKA gravity is a not a force between masses but a byproduct of the ether density gradient around collections of matter which condenses the ether. AKA Gauss's Law for Gravity All matter is put in motion by the motion of the ether medium. AKA instead of e=mc^2, we use m=e/c^2, implying that mass or inertia is an after effect of the motion of the ether, or a Lorentz force. This also implies that when the magnetic flux or ether density changes, a denser medium implies a lower speed of light. Likewise, a denser magnetic flux will create a smaller radius of the plasma ring current around magnetized planet. In this manner there is no conundrum involving the Roche Limit.
Everything depends on the Aether tension spanning the quantum foam and the matter universe's tension. When the Aether tension is less than the matter universe, there could be micro black holes or zones forming. Equal tensions across the quantum foam will have no activity (stasis) of Aether products manifesting into the matter universe. When there is a higher Aether tension to the matter tension, then the Aether will shoot product into the matter universe. Such productions can be Aether sub-quantum particulates which appear RED (not Doppler red shift), and higher matter particules appearing as BLUE-WHITE (not Doppler blue shift). Cosmic nurseries, or such dust clouds or gas clouds, have a very weak Aether tension background, and no higher processes and fusions of elements. Thus cosmic nurseries of gas and dust clouds remain without accretionary processes.
I have an hypothesis formed by the information the solar system (SS) is 'bouncing' up & down through the galactic plane, by the angle of the SS ecliptic & the close proximity of both Sag Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) & the unusual relationship we have with Sirius. My 'What If...' scenario is: - the SS came from SDG as it streams through the galactic plane; the angle of the SS ecliptic is about the same as the angle of SDG as it passes through. I've never seen a good explanation for why the ecliptic of the SS would be so tilted from the galactic one as you'd expect the major angular momentum effect to be driven the passage around the core. - So maybe the SS was stripped from SDG by a close encounter with Sirius. This elastic collision could started the ping-pong bounce - A close encounter with Sirius could also be why we have an unusual relationship with that system, as we became 'bound' to Sirius by the close encounter. It might also explain why our SS is so unique compared to everything else we've found out there. Not just are we 'alien,' but we may have had a vast shakeup caused by a close encounter disturbing the SS. Roll out Velikovsky! 🤣 - This could also answer the mystery of why the SS is significantly different from the surrounding medium. i.e. the SS was formed literally in another galaxy.
Apologies if I missed the coverage of this… although I’d appreciate why you’d leave it out because it’s a challenging theory from the EU, but if our solar system today was actually formed by the merger of two solar systems, would that help account for the krypton? Is that your secret master plan here? You’ve found the answer to how we start to potentially prove that our current Sun is not the mother all of the planets and matter here. I take it no one in mainstream is entertaining this idea? Can you imagine this is how it starts? That krypton was the weakness that overpowered the superman Goliath that is today’s mainstream scientific beliefs. It’s too good to be true. I can but dream.
The source of the elements discussed is the Sun. It is strange that the said hypothesis, being the most obvious one, wasn't even considered. To be exact, it is the Sun, wich apparently goes micronova every 12000 years or so. And we are about to witness the next Sun micronova with our own eyes in a few years, so it seems. Any thoughts on that? P.S. Love your work!
Fascinating video thank you. Perhaps our sun is synthesising Krypton by as yet unknown process. Is Krypton dispersed uniformly through the solar system?
No it appears like the inner solar system has a higher concentration compared to the outer parts but we obviously have much more evidence for the inner solar system compared to the outer. Also the inner solar system is composed of rocky planets vs the gas giants
Ok hear me out: if galaxies expand when young (hence the red shift in Arp's model), then there may not be such a thing as gravity, just matter expanding at the same rate. If two planets are expanding at the same rate, then from the perspective of either planet, it would appear that the two planets are getting closer, i.e. it would appear that they are being attracted whereas what they are really doing is expanding. This would need all the matter in a galaxy to expand at the exact same rate. Has anyone else heard this theory before?
Heavy elements are produced *inside* the solar system by the organic life present on Earth! It's not the interstellar medium that is poor, it's us that is rich : )
Quantum magnetic fields are stronger at their cores. Hydrogen has the strongest magnetic field of force flow currents and least distance traveling cycling circulation grounding currents into itself as mass occupies space through its nucleus. Internal magnetic fields grounding currents through the nucleus. External magnetic fields don't ground energy and are outside hurricanes around these spheres or nucleus of black spheres without absolute zero energy within the nucleus as pure fabric of cold space repulsion potential monopole of repulsion to energy propulsion from repulsion as hurricanes and tornadoes spinning off excessive energy singularities outside of entanglement. Proximity mass loses its ability to cycle circulation patterns of grounding by disrupted normal repulsion of space itself filled with dark energy outside of entanglement of mass. Space itself is a weak external magnetic field filled with dark energy outside of entanglement. Theoretically factual probability that works with quantum physics without gravity. Magnetism is force of pressure known as weightless outside of a greater magnetic field as outward force of pressure. In a magnetic field synchronization of quantum magnetic fields currents grounding themselves as mass as force of pressure known as weight of grounding currents trickling through all masses in its path until resistance is overcome by open space itself and returns to dark energy outside of entanglement. Gravity doesn't exist or work. Energy is liquidity infinity. Illusionary solidity is liquidity and energy is always liquidity just cycling in quantum magnetic fields as force fields holding pressure in equalization to pressure and distance traveling cycling circulation patterns as mass in equalization to renewable energy striking electric sparks of electrons as lighting up filaments. Lightning burns through atmospheres producing sparks of electrons as light and resonating heat waves as thunder. Space has stars blowing away all energy outward and leaves normal space filled with dark energy outside of entanglement of mass as a weak external magnetic field filled but not strong enough to slam the void created by the explosion of the star and can only collect around the perimeter of the void created by the blowout of pressure. Space itself is filled with dark energy but is to weak to close in on the void created by the breakdown of mass of the star. External magnetic fields forms and synchronization of flow bonding occurs. Normal space is disrupted from the plasma circulation around these spheres of pure cold repulsion as monopole of repulsion to energy. Hurricanes and tornadoes spinning around it. Strongest external magnetic fields spinning proximity mass and space itself in its field of occupation circulation. Proximity mass to close releasing internal magnetic fields grounding currents into the greater magnetic field flow of pressure cycling circulation energy. Proximity mass disolves its internal magnetic fields. Equalization of pressure until equilibrium is reached. Galaxies are formed by this process of external magnetic fields don't ground energy as mass. Density can't exceed resistance within occupational space as energy within and without entanglement. Force of pressure is outward never inward. Currents flowing through space and mass as liquidity through illusionary solidity of liquidity. A blood stream of pressure equalization throughout space as distance traveling and force of pressure. Mass is equal to distance traveling and force. Magnetic fields are equalization to force and distance traveling. Heat waves distort space and magnification of light amplification. Light is only present in resistance. Lightning equalization to pressure and distance traveling. Galaxies spinning in equalization to pressure of force and distance traveling. More force at the core and less distance traveling. Outward is opposite. More distance traveling less force. Mathematics.
Or maybe nuclear synthesis is not restricted to stars or massive bodies only; the interstellar medium is a cesspool for nuclear chemistry and transmutation. Thanks for the info.
Why are you still reasoning from the standard solar model and theory of stellar evolution when these hypotheses have been disproven by Robitaille? It should be obvious by now that stars are not balls of gas, but condensed matter. This precludes the existence of all super dense objects: there are no black holes, neutron stars, white dwarves etc. The processes you talk about are not happening as you describe in this video for the same reason. Processes for heavy element production are incorrect as you describe them. I'm not sure you realise the poor state of astronomy and cosmology. This video is disappointing for these reasons.
You are correct, the ratio between new-born stars and Supernova is 1/400,000,000. Supernova's cannot produce such abundance of heavy elements. I believe that you will enjoy my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe' because explaining all these "puzzles".
@stealyatron. You remain absolutely correct in your reply about Robitaille's condensed matter or liquid sun. Once again, I repeat you, THERE ARE NO BLACK HOLES NOR NEUTRON STARS. I ADD THAT NO DARK MATTER/ENERGY, NO COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION, NO SUPER DENSE WHITE DWARVES EXIST.
@@todtenhoff2900 Anywhere there is plasma, and discharge, you will have elemental transmutation. There are free protons everywhere, and heavier elements as well, all in ion form, throughout the solar atmosphere above the surface.
Like this idea very much. For all the talk about a fusion generator, like at the sun's core, it's always another ten years down the road. Can't duplicate it.
@@summerbrooks9922 Exactly. Plasma provides it's own magnetic containment for fusion to take place. The proof is in a lightning strike. The sun is under continuous lightning-type discharge, where turbulent plasma magnifies the magnetic fields and squeezes the plasma together with all those free alpha particles and protons, and ionized oxygen, carbon, sodium, etc. The nuclear reactions taking place aren't only the hydrogen to helium reactions, but carbon to nitrogen or oxygen with the release of large amounts of energy.
The Aether is that portion of a stellar engine photosphere fusing sub-quantum particles together to make atoms of Hydrogen to Iron. In the same way, the whole cosmos and the quantum foam is the cosmic photosphere fusing these widespread Hydrogen to Iron. Any other higher elemental products are created via the stellar engine chromosphere (Cobalt to Element 118) or that of (super)novas blowing debris all over the region.
The notion that elements produced in some beginning (big bang) or random supernova explosions would not be sensible given the discrepancy of element abundance; it would make more sense that there is a cyclic process as elements are being produced already in position; on the photosphere of stars. Pretty comprehensive video, thanks.
Not everybody share your view, but I do. I believe that you cannot understand physics well and not to come to this understanding. There is one book which I believe you will enjoy - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 I know, but it just seems to be so the more we understand how the Universe works. I think I looked into that a couple of years ago but I will definitely get the book as I'm very interested in the subject. Thanks for the tip.
Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry: 1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi Pref(R/S) = f(Φn) Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness. 2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals) κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities) Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals. 3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Pluralistic Quantum Superposition |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives) Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties) Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms. 4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics) LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits. The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales. Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry: 5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p) Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p) Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads. 6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Complementary Pluriverse Observables Δx Δp ≥ h/4π Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles) xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x) Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity. 7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions) |Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states) Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations. 8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn) pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies) dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization) Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms. In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox? A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions. Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity? A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality. Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia? A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer. Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.? A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism. Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc? A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start. Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc? A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality. By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
It is worth noting that the term "interstellar dust" is something of a misnomer. "Interstellar dust" is not even visible to the naked eye, and tricky to see under a microscope. I did the maths for one of my Sci-Fi stories, and these are the numbers: When a spaceship travelling at just 15% the speed of light encounters a single interstellar dust particle it hits with the same force as a .50 caliber Barret US army sniper rifle. If one of these bullet hits you, it doesn't matter what it hits - it turns your body into an exploding cloud of vapor, and blows bits of you all over the place - even shredding your clothes. If that same ship hits a particle the size of a grain of beach sand, it hits with the force of 50-tons of TNT. That's how small interstellar dust grains actually are!
So much of cosmology requires a fertile imagination to account for elemental conditions. Ofter, they are very fanciful, especially when the tacid aim is to preserve a dying standard theory. How about the possibility the sun synthesizes O2 and Kr? It takes less ideation of imaginative factors. Less clouds floating through the neighbourhood that would otherwise be observable.
I think the folks over at Suspicious0bservers may have an interesting perspective on this in there. Focus on the Earth and its disaster cycle. They talk about micro nova and maybe this corner of the universe has had some unique circumstances that impact the krypton ratio this video discusses
With astronomers accepting the reality of repeating micro-novae, it would be interesting to look at the composition of those systems that experience them. It would tell us something about what to expect here at home.
mapping the Birkland currents of the Milkyway and it's paths through the intersteller and intergalatic space has to be the most vital and rewarding aspect of cosmology that astronomers could do.
They could literally be pathways for travel in the future.
@@Critter145 Wrong scale mate, just crossing the path would take 200,000 years at the speed of light, so travelling along the path is ridiculous.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 at sublight speeds yes. It’s an idea.
@@Critter145 A ridiculous idea based on a complete lack of understanding, yes.
@@digbysirchickentf2315 🥰😘
It makes the most sense that elements were produced in-situ in stellar atmospheric electrical conditions.
The notion that the Universe’s chemical constituents were made in stars by gravitational processes, then transported the absurdly huge distances at sublight speeds is insane.
Interesting
That's a seriously complicated theory. Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun micro nova produces the material?
Exactly. The materials are synthesized on the surface/atmosphere, where there is continuous electrical discharge. It is known that terrestrial lightning is enough to cause isotopic transformation of elements, including the observation of gamma radiation. The atmosphere of the sun is pure plasma and the lower, denser atmosphere is undergoing continuous "lightning." That's everything you need for nuclear synthesis, as we've observed on earth.
Fusion or molecular rearrangement takes place in electric currents in the photosphere or along other galactic currents that provide the necessary coherency or frequency to allow fusion to occur. X-ray or gamma implies nuclear rearrangement, infrared implies molecular rearrangement.
For example, molecular arrangement occurs along the magnetosphere and magnetotail of comets to produce hydroxyls or even crude oil.
The electric filaments are observed in the lower photosphere using hydrogen alpha.
'Observing the Sun in Hydrogen Alpha' -
By: Brian Ventrudo and Manish Panjwani
August 17, 2016
Or
EXPLORE THE NIGHT WITH BOB KING
OBSERVER'S GUIDE TO THE H-ALPHA SUN
BY: BOB KING SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 12
There is literally zero evidence to support that bs 12000 year model, if so why cant someone point out the layers in the grand canyon that correspond to this 12,000 year cycle
Possibly all of the excess Krypton is due to Superman's homeworld being in the local Gould belt before its destruction?
Makes more sense than a gas cloud with fusion at the core.
The abundance of heavy elements in the Universe is not supported by Supernova hypothesis, because the ratio of new-formed stars to supernova is 1/400,000,000. Supernova is an very rear exception (an cosmic accident) is not part of the recycling system of the Universe. Interesting details can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Wishing “See The Pattern” was enjoying five million subscribers and 100K views on a daily basis 🤞
True and let's hope it'll reach that level, although sadly facts are not popular among a public beholden by entertainment "cosmology"; only fairy tales and magic dust can do it.
An outlier?
In possibly infinite space?
Or even in the almost unimaginable giantness of the universe?
How would anyone define common?
Infinite, incommensurable
We haven't existed for one second in relation to the universe. 🙏🏼♾️ Our journey is only beginning.
@@EnergyTRE, in infinity how would you know if you were past the starting line? Let alone even at it?
These are not physical questions.
Can u explain me outlier galaxies in simple term plz ?
I am imagining being inside the nucleus of an atom, or cell, and when looking from the inside out, only being able to see relatively close, and similarly active, structures/systems. The "physical" structure of space, and what it carries/collects, is invisable and dark, without special equipment.
Awesome video 😄✌️
Maybe most of the elements don't escape to the interstellar medium.
I'll stick with theory #4...
The Sun goes Nova but not enough to push materials and ejecta outside of its own heliosphere...
The idea of other stars imparting nova materials upon our system seems to fail as certain sun and nova created materials would not last as the dustances are too great, I cant recall the exact wording for it but basically their radioactive lifecycle would have passed away before reaching here, yet they are found here, secondly there aren't any stars close enough that have gone nova for these materials recently enough...
A small nova or micronova event would increase the seen imbalance...
I actually dont like these ideas that simply because we cant initially explain something we observe then it must be something far bigger as if we cant see the wood for the tree's...
Your idea is more plausible than any of the theories Garret mentioned.
@@P-B-G_YT Not mine but one that makes a more plausible theory based on things like the cyclically aligning geomagnetics, current reports of a greater amount of dust in our systems path that may be the accretion basis for a nova event, and we have the visible change of the sun looking white rather than the yellow flared sun seen until between the late 1970's onwards...
I don't discount what can be sound theories or explanations and keep them in mind...
If we thought of our solar system as an atom with it's own electrical charge and we then passed it through a differently charged dust cloud... I would expect a similar type of alteration to the ability to either gain increased charge or... Discharge... Just as we avoid differently charged storm clouds with aviation...
I follow suspicious 0bservers and the usage of the sciences does to me, make for sound reasoning but we also do not have the same reported science over the past complete cycle around our galactic centre...
A bag of salt and a bag of popcorn and we'll all see where it all leads to 😉👍
One possible explanation might include the galactic current sheet and recurring micro-nova.
Seems that this is evidence of two things.
A supernova is not an explosion but a rarefaction of the remnant plasma, leaving the remnant core behind. The matter is dragged out by the departure of the expanding remnant ionosphere after the input energy is terminated, AKA after the z-pinch is terminated.
Poincare was right that Newtonian Gravity is backwards.
Inertia and gravity and are side-effects of a Lorentz force in the ether medium.
AKA gravity is a not a force between masses but a byproduct of the ether density gradient around collections of matter which condenses the ether.
AKA Gauss's Law for Gravity
All matter is put in motion by the motion of the ether medium.
AKA instead of e=mc^2, we use m=e/c^2, implying that mass or inertia is an after effect of the motion of the ether, or a Lorentz force.
This also implies that when the magnetic flux or ether density changes, a denser medium implies a lower speed of light.
Likewise, a denser magnetic flux will create a smaller radius of the plasma ring current around magnetized planet. In this manner there is no conundrum involving the Roche Limit.
Everything depends on the Aether tension spanning the quantum foam and the matter universe's tension. When the Aether tension is less than the matter universe, there could be micro black holes or zones forming. Equal tensions across the quantum foam will have no activity (stasis) of Aether products manifesting into the matter universe. When there is a higher Aether tension to the matter tension, then the Aether will shoot product into the matter universe. Such productions can be Aether sub-quantum particulates which appear RED (not Doppler red shift), and higher matter particules appearing as BLUE-WHITE (not Doppler blue shift). Cosmic nurseries, or such dust clouds or gas clouds, have a very weak Aether tension background, and no higher processes and fusions of elements. Thus cosmic nurseries of gas and dust clouds remain without accretionary processes.
#4 fusion is taking place not in the core but in the Star's upper atmosphere and various elements are being produce.
I have an hypothesis formed by the information the solar system (SS) is 'bouncing' up & down through the galactic plane, by the angle of the SS ecliptic & the close proximity of both Sag Dwarf Galaxy (SDG) & the unusual relationship we have with Sirius.
My 'What If...' scenario is:
- the SS came from SDG as it streams through the galactic plane; the angle of the SS ecliptic is about the same as the angle of SDG as it passes through. I've never seen a good explanation for why the ecliptic of the SS would be so tilted from the galactic one as you'd expect the major angular momentum effect to be driven the passage around the core.
- So maybe the SS was stripped from SDG by a close encounter with Sirius. This elastic collision could started the ping-pong bounce
- A close encounter with Sirius could also be why we have an unusual relationship with that system, as we became 'bound' to Sirius by the close encounter. It might also explain why our SS is so unique compared to everything else we've found out there. Not just are we 'alien,' but we may have had a vast shakeup caused by a close encounter disturbing the SS. Roll out Velikovsky! 🤣
- This could also answer the mystery of why the SS is significantly different from the surrounding medium. i.e. the SS was formed literally in another galaxy.
Apologies if I missed the coverage of this… although I’d appreciate why you’d leave it out because it’s a challenging theory from the EU, but if our solar system today was actually formed by the merger of two solar systems, would that help account for the krypton? Is that your secret master plan here? You’ve found the answer to how we start to potentially prove that our current Sun is not the mother all of the planets and matter here. I take it no one in mainstream is entertaining this idea?
Can you imagine this is how it starts? That krypton was the weakness that overpowered the superman Goliath that is today’s mainstream scientific beliefs. It’s too good to be true. I can but dream.
Kryptonite!!
The source of the elements discussed is the Sun. It is strange that the said hypothesis, being the most obvious one, wasn't even considered. To be exact, it is the Sun, wich apparently goes micronova every 12000 years or so. And we are about to witness the next Sun micronova with our own eyes in a few years, so it seems. Any thoughts on that? P.S. Love your work!
Fascinating video thank you. Perhaps our sun is synthesising Krypton by as yet unknown process. Is Krypton dispersed uniformly through the solar system?
No it appears like the inner solar system has a higher concentration compared to the outer parts but we obviously have much more evidence for the inner solar system compared to the outer. Also the inner solar system is composed of rocky planets vs the gas giants
Ok hear me out: if galaxies expand when young (hence the red shift in Arp's model), then there may not be such a thing as gravity, just matter expanding at the same rate.
If two planets are expanding at the same rate, then from the perspective of either planet, it would appear that the two planets are getting closer, i.e. it would appear that they are being attracted whereas what they are really doing is expanding.
This would need all the matter in a galaxy to expand at the exact same rate. Has anyone else heard this theory before?
Why can't 27.2 eV per transition of hydrogen as hydrino do most of the heavy lifting 4 mineral formation?
But Krypton was destroyed by its red sun.
Perhaps local negative entropy.
Heavy elements are produced *inside* the solar system by the organic life present on Earth! It's not the interstellar medium that is poor, it's us that is rich : )
Is that why aliens come here? For us "Rich" guys ?
@@summerbrooks9922 You said it! : )
if diffusion doesn't work from wolves to Chihuahua's or back again...
4. The Solar System was created
this explain the lack of superman
No.
Quantum magnetic fields are stronger at their cores. Hydrogen has the strongest magnetic field of force flow currents and least distance traveling cycling circulation grounding currents into itself as mass occupies space through its nucleus. Internal magnetic fields grounding currents through the nucleus. External magnetic fields don't ground energy and are outside hurricanes around these spheres or nucleus of black spheres without absolute zero energy within the nucleus as pure fabric of cold space repulsion potential monopole of repulsion to energy propulsion from repulsion as hurricanes and tornadoes spinning off excessive energy singularities outside of entanglement. Proximity mass loses its ability to cycle circulation patterns of grounding by disrupted normal repulsion of space itself filled with dark energy outside of entanglement of mass. Space itself is a weak external magnetic field filled with dark energy outside of entanglement. Theoretically factual probability that works with quantum physics without gravity. Magnetism is force of pressure known as weightless outside of a greater magnetic field as outward force of pressure. In a magnetic field synchronization of quantum magnetic fields currents grounding themselves as mass as force of pressure known as weight of grounding currents trickling through all masses in its path until resistance is overcome by open space itself and returns to dark energy outside of entanglement. Gravity doesn't exist or work. Energy is liquidity infinity. Illusionary solidity is liquidity and energy is always liquidity just cycling in quantum magnetic fields as force fields holding pressure in equalization to pressure and distance traveling cycling circulation patterns as mass in equalization to renewable energy striking electric sparks of electrons as lighting up filaments. Lightning burns through atmospheres producing sparks of electrons as light and resonating heat waves as thunder. Space has stars blowing away all energy outward and leaves normal space filled with dark energy outside of entanglement of mass as a weak external magnetic field filled but not strong enough to slam the void created by the explosion of the star and can only collect around the perimeter of the void created by the blowout of pressure. Space itself is filled with dark energy but is to weak to close in on the void created by the breakdown of mass of the star. External magnetic fields forms and synchronization of flow bonding occurs. Normal space is disrupted from the plasma circulation around these spheres of pure cold repulsion as monopole of repulsion to energy. Hurricanes and tornadoes spinning around it. Strongest external magnetic fields spinning proximity mass and space itself in its field of occupation circulation. Proximity mass to close releasing internal magnetic fields grounding currents into the greater magnetic field flow of pressure cycling circulation energy. Proximity mass disolves its internal magnetic fields. Equalization of pressure until equilibrium is reached. Galaxies are formed by this process of external magnetic fields don't ground energy as mass. Density can't exceed resistance within occupational space as energy within and without entanglement. Force of pressure is outward never inward. Currents flowing through space and mass as liquidity through illusionary solidity of liquidity. A blood stream of pressure equalization throughout space as distance traveling and force of pressure. Mass is equal to distance traveling and force. Magnetic fields are equalization to force and distance traveling. Heat waves distort space and magnification of light amplification. Light is only present in resistance. Lightning equalization to pressure and distance traveling. Galaxies spinning in equalization to pressure of force and distance traveling. More force at the core and less distance traveling. Outward is opposite. More distance traveling less force. Mathematics.
Or maybe nuclear synthesis is not restricted to stars or massive bodies only; the interstellar medium is a cesspool for nuclear chemistry and transmutation. Thanks for the info.
#2 makes the most sense. Each planet shows signs of being blasted a few times. Even this one.
Why are you still reasoning from the standard solar model and theory of stellar evolution when these hypotheses have been disproven by Robitaille? It should be obvious by now that stars are not balls of gas, but condensed matter. This precludes the existence of all super dense objects: there are no black holes, neutron stars, white dwarves etc. The processes you talk about are not happening as you describe in this video for the same reason. Processes for heavy element production are incorrect as you describe them.
I'm not sure you realise the poor state of astronomy and cosmology. This video is disappointing for these reasons.
You are correct, the ratio between new-born stars and Supernova is 1/400,000,000. Supernova's cannot produce such abundance of heavy elements. I believe that you will enjoy my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe' because explaining all these "puzzles".
@@valentinmalinov8424 Thanks, I'll have a look.
@stealyatron. You remain absolutely correct in your reply about Robitaille's condensed matter or liquid sun. Once again, I repeat you, THERE ARE NO BLACK HOLES NOR NEUTRON STARS. I ADD THAT NO DARK MATTER/ENERGY, NO COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION, NO SUPER DENSE WHITE DWARVES EXIST.
Fusion does not take place in the core. It takes place in the atmosphere.
You mean the corona?
@@todtenhoff2900 Anywhere there is plasma, and discharge, you will have elemental transmutation. There are free protons everywhere, and heavier elements as well, all in ion form, throughout the solar atmosphere above the surface.
Like this idea very much. For all the talk about a fusion generator, like at the sun's core, it's always another ten years down the road. Can't duplicate it.
@@summerbrooks9922 check SAFIRE project 😘
@@summerbrooks9922 Exactly. Plasma provides it's own magnetic containment for fusion to take place. The proof is in a lightning strike. The sun is under continuous lightning-type discharge, where turbulent plasma magnifies the magnetic fields and squeezes the plasma together with all those free alpha particles and protons, and ionized oxygen, carbon, sodium, etc. The nuclear reactions taking place aren't only the hydrogen to helium reactions, but carbon to nitrogen or oxygen with the release of large amounts of energy.
The Aether is that portion of a stellar engine photosphere fusing sub-quantum particles together to make atoms of Hydrogen to Iron. In the same way, the whole cosmos and the quantum foam is the cosmic photosphere fusing these widespread Hydrogen to Iron. Any other higher elemental products are created via the stellar engine chromosphere (Cobalt to Element 118) or that of (super)novas blowing debris all over the region.
The notion that elements produced in some beginning (big bang) or random supernova explosions would not be sensible given the discrepancy of element abundance; it would make more sense that there is a cyclic process as elements are being produced already in position; on the photosphere of stars. Pretty comprehensive video, thanks.
Interesting. The undulating specific gravity of the universe based upon hydrogen as a concept.
The more we study the universe, the more solar systems, galaxies, and the universe seems to work as a living organism.
Not everybody share your view, but I do. I believe that you cannot understand physics well and not to come to this understanding. There is one book which I believe you will enjoy - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 I know, but it just seems to be so the more we understand how the Universe works. I think I looked into that a couple of years ago but I will definitely get the book as I'm very interested in the subject. Thanks for the tip.
Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry:
1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes
Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi
Pref(R/S) = f(Φn)
Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness.
2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics
Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries
dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals)
κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities)
Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals.
3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes
Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Pluralistic Quantum Superposition
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives)
Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties)
Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms.
4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes
Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies
d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics)
LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits.
The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales.
Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry:
5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter
Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p)
Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p)
Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads.
6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Complementary Pluriverse Observables
Δx Δp ≥ h/4π
Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles)
xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x)
Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity.
7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond
Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations
Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions)
|Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states)
Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations.
8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow
Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics
S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn)
pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies)
dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization)
Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms.
In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox?
A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions.
Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity?
A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality.
Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia?
A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer.
Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.?
A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism.
Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc?
A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start.
Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc?
A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality.
By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
It is worth noting that the term "interstellar dust" is something of a misnomer. "Interstellar dust" is not even visible to the naked eye, and tricky to see under a microscope. I did the maths for one of my Sci-Fi stories, and these are the numbers:
When a spaceship travelling at just 15% the speed of light encounters a single interstellar dust particle it hits with the same force as a .50 caliber Barret US army sniper rifle. If one of these bullet hits you, it doesn't matter what it hits - it turns your body into an exploding cloud of vapor, and blows bits of you all over the place - even shredding your clothes.
If that same ship hits a particle the size of a grain of beach sand, it hits with the force of 50-tons of TNT.
That's how small interstellar dust grains actually are!
The galaxy has input and output currents. There is no dark energy. There is no dark matter.
So much of cosmology requires a fertile imagination to account for elemental conditions. Ofter, they are very fanciful, especially when the tacid aim is to preserve a dying standard theory. How about the possibility the sun synthesizes O2 and Kr? It takes less ideation of imaginative factors. Less clouds floating through the neighbourhood that would otherwise be observable.
I think the folks over at Suspicious0bservers may have an interesting perspective on this in there. Focus on the Earth and its disaster cycle.
They talk about micro nova and maybe this corner of the universe has had some unique circumstances that impact the krypton ratio this video discusses
Transmutación?
Just a creative, destructive dipolar recycling system!