explaining the anomaly of low cosmic abundance of deuterium, lithium, beryllium, boron Chapt13.4007 Strong Nuclear Force as a Chemical bond #458 New Physics #578 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I do not recall the numbers data of how much the lighter elements are
missing in the
Cosmic abundance count. I do recall it is a big enough problem and
conundrum to
deserve a lot of attention. I remember a Scientific American article
based solely on
this anomaly.

Anyway, if the Strong Nuclear Force was a chemical bond, then we would
see that
it is vulnerable to large heat. Just as we recognize the Strong
Nuclear as vulnerable to heat of melting and boiling point, we also
can recognize that in a plasma environment of
the Sun that the lightest elements would be so to speak "burned off"
or disproportionately
lower in count.

Rhenium boils at 5869K and the photosphere of the Sun is 5778K.

So how does this cauldron of heat, as the Sun make the lighter
elements lower in count?
Well, in the center of the Sun, the Strong Nuclear force would boil
off not only the electrons but also boil off the nucleus of protons
and neutrons but since they are
so rich of an environment of protons and neutrons they reform, fuse
again and again.

The elements of hydrogen and helium would be favored rather than the
elements of
lithium, beryllium and boron.

In fact, the percentage of hydrogen in stars is far more in favor of
hydrogen than
anywhere else in the Cosmos when we make abundance of elements
accounts.

So in New Physics, as we see the Strong Nuclear force as a chemical
bond between
proton and neutron, we also see that this force is vulnerable to heat
more so than the old picture of Old Physics where they though the
Strong Nuclear was a force somewhat
invincible to plasma environments.

The reason the lighter elements, deuterium, lithium, beryllium and
boron are so Cosmically deplete, is because they were broken apart in
stellar environments and
their protons and neutrons reformed to making more hydrogen and helium
with those
protons and neutrons. And if we look towards environments of planets
with the lighter
elements we find that hydrogen and helium seem to be scarce compared
to lithium, beryllium and boron. All of which is easily explained by
the proton chemically bonded
to the neutron to form the Strong Nuclear Force.

It is not a coincidence that the temperature of the photosphere of the
Sun is almost the same temperature that the element rhenium boils.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Apr 27, 1:45 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Now the above ties in somewhat to a recent NOVA show I saw last week
about the Sun.
And the item that stuck out for me was to learn that photons created
in the core of the Sun
take about a 1,000 years to get out of the Sun and then 8 minutes
strike Earth as sunlight.
So that the sunlight we are bathed in today was originally produced by
the sun when Europe was
in the Medieval days.

When we combine that idea of sunlight taking a 1,000 years to get out
of the Sun, and the idea
that the plasma physics of the Sun and the strong-nuclear force is a
chemical bond force of proton
to neutron, we can come to various new conclusions about the Sun.

We can wonder if the sun is actually far older than 4 billion years
and likely to be 10 billion years old
because so much of the Sun is hydrogen 75% and 24% helium. For if the
Strong Nuclear force is a chemical
bond, that the other elements except hydrogen are stripped down into
becoming hydrogen due to heat of the sun. Not due to radioactive decay
of fission or of fusion, but since the Strong Nuclear force is just a
chemical bond, that the Sun is continually turning heavier elements
into hydrogen in the Sun.

Now we can think of heat as the kinetic energy of the particles in the
environment and the Sun would have a lot of particles of kinetic
energy, so that if a iron atom were in the Sun's core, Old Physics
would say, once produced, it remains in the Sun until the Sun
explodes, but in New Physics, with the Strong Nuclear force as a
chemical bond, that iron is stripped down and stripped apart into
becoming more hydrogen atoms. So what iron exists in our Sun now, is
newly minted iron and not iron that was there 4 billion years ago.

Also, in that NOVA show about photons taking a 1,000 years to get to
the surface of the Sun and then 8 minutes to reach us here on Earth,
brings up another question that sort of bothers me about Doppler
redshift. You may know that I do not believe in Doppler shift at all,
and that Doppler shift exists only for sound waves
but not for light waves for that would violate Special Relativity. So
the Doppler shift of light in Cosmology must be something else such as
refraction producing the redshift. So this fact that light takes 1,000
years to
surface on the Sun and then 8 minutes to reach us, begs a curious
question. Do we see a Doppler redshift of the Sun, not because of the
motion of the Sun relative to Earth, but because those photons were
pent-up, inside the Sun scattering around for 1,000 years and when
finally emerging to the surface and flying to Earth, would not those
scattering light rays have a "redshift associated with their 1,000
year pent up scattering?"

Now I wonder if any researcher who is actually working on observing
the Sun's light, whether they ever noticed that the Sun as a
"redshift"? And if it does, no matter how small or large that redshift
of Sunlight is,
what it means is that Doppler redshift was a fake physics idea. It was
alright for sound waves, but it was never correct for light waves.

Now it maybe that the pent up photons of the Sun have no redshift at
all, and not to trouble the Doppler redshift. And if that is the case,
well, there is still the curvature of the Cosmos that dispels the
Doppler redshift. But I am concerned that maybe the Sun itself
disproves the Doppler redshift, because if the Sun
does in fact have a Doppler redshift that observers were too loathe to
report or not careful in noticing the redshift, than that would be
vital new and important news, because the Sun cannot have a redshift
of light
for the distance from Sun to Earth and the speeds involved cannot
support a Doppler redshift.