#445 AP book of science-- Revising and Overhauling Astronomy's Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram in light of the fact stars shine from Faraday Law, not fusion// Astrophysics by Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I should have done this much earlier. As I discovered the true Atom has a muon stuck inside a proton torus doing the Faraday law and that is the source of star energy, what makes them shine. There is only a tiny tiny bit of fusion going on in a star, and over 90% of the energy comes from Faraday law.

This means the Hertzsprung-Russell H-R Diagram is in need of fixing up with its graph of all stars with x-axis being spectral class-temperature and y-axis being Luminosity.

Actually, most of the H-R is correct with a "Main Sequence of Stars".

^

|    \

|        \

|            \

|_________\______>

When stars shine from Faraday Law there is only one real parameter of Mass on y-axis and spectral class-temperature on x-axis.

The upper right corner given to Red Giants and Supergiants need a new explanation.

The lower right corner of White Dwarfs need a new explanation and the reason I am writing this book for Faraday Law explains both the Giants and the Dwarfs. And makes the graph be just that of looking like this.

^

|    \

|        \

|            \

|_________\______>

AP, King of Science

#445 AP book of science-- Revising and Overhauling Astronomy's Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram in light of the fact stars shine from Faraday Law, not fusion// Astrophysics by Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I am going to use the textbook UNIVERSE, Kaufmann, 1985. He shows the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram on page 341. And one of the reasons I have shyed away from revision of H-R, is because of "absolute magnitude" which is luminosity for y-axis versus color spectra (temperature) for x-axis. I needed to think about those two parameters combined. For basically, my revision simply says, substitute MASS for Luminosity in a environment where Faraday Law is the mechanism of star power.

And at the time, I had no clear understanding as to how Old Astronomy determined mass of distant stars. I find out that binary stars were determined but not singular stars. And so they take binary stars and determine there mass then from that data plot the H-R diagram. Now they ask you if you want to know the mass of a singular star, just figure out its spectra class and figure out its absolute magnitude and then the H-R tells you its mass. But this method is error ridden for in Binary stars there is huge error in computing absolute magnitude luminosity.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So, below is Wikipedia's picture of the Hertzsprung Russell Diagram and what I am going to do is end up with just the Main Sequence. A more straight line than HR shows. Straight line because star mass is directly proportional to star spectra-temperature. This makes sense when Faraday law is the mechanism, not fusion.

What do I do with Red Giants and Giants in upper right corner and White Dwarfs in lower left corner????

I simply say for Faraday law, that Red Giants and Giants go through some phase where the star has envelopes of plasma, like a Nova about to explode, but does not explode, and when this phase is finished with and either explodes or collapses and becomes a member of the Main Sequence. As for the White Dwarfs, I suspect poor data collection as these are really just O spectra stars with a large distance away.

It is logically silly to have a physics diagram of stars looking like the HR of Old Astronomy.

p

--- quoting Wikipedia on the HR-diagram---

An observational Hertzsprung–Russell diagram with 22,000 stars plotted from the Hipparcos Catalogue and 1,000 from the Gliese Catalogue of nearby stars. Stars tend to fall only into certain regions of the diagram. The most prominent is the diagonal, going from the upper-left (hot and bright) to the lower-right (cooler and less bright), called the main sequence. In the lower-left is where white dwarfs are found, and above the main sequence are the subgiants, giants and supergiants. The Sun is found on the main sequence at luminosity 1 (absolute magnitude 4.8) and B−V color index 0.66 (temperature 5780 K, spectral type G2V).

ppp

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Doing some rough calculations.

Sun circumference is 3.14 x diameter is 3.14 x 1,400,000 km =4,390,000 km 

Saturn circumference out to its E Ring is diameter of 960,000 km. Times that by 3.14 is 3,014,000 km

So what I am saying here, is Star formation mechanics is that Red Giant stars have much of their Plasma spew out and form a STAR RING SYSTEM.

And if we view a star that is Red Giant where we see its Ring System directly in line of sight, we will think the star is the whole entire Ring System.

Would would be mistaken just as much if we viewed Saturn full on with its ring system and think that the whole planet is the size of its rings.

And this STAR RING SYSTEM works the opposite for Blue stars and White Dwarfs. The White Dwarfs are the star without the Ring system. While the huge giant O stars the blue stars are stars where we falsely included their Rings as being the entire size of the star itself.

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

There are many many stars with what can be called Ring systems, some are shells, concentric shells.

But what AP says is different about these stars is not what the dumb Old Astronomy thinks of these rings and shells. Dumb Old Astronomy thinks stars shine from fusion and so their rings and shells around stars were foreign dust and matter picked up by the star. 

AP says stars shine from Faraday Law of all its atoms, and this mechanism often spews out matter from the star itself that surrounds the star.

Red Giants and Blue star giants routinely eject matter from the star to surround the star and make dumb astronomers here on Earth, when they see them, make them think these are huge stars which they are not but rather stars that have routinely emitted some of their matter.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, so the dumb stupid scientists of Old Astronomy could never conceive of stars shining from Faraday law, no, all their tiny minds can do is memorize what they read in books. To them, fusion is the only way stars can shine. In fact, I bet, only a handful of the astronomers today, ever did the Faraday law of thrusting a bar magnet through a copper coil attached to a Galvanometer.

These memorization fools would never understand that every Proton in existence has a muon inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law. That is how our Sun shines, not from fusion.

And naturally of course these idiots in Old Astronomy would think of calling a Star Ring or Disc or Shell by the name of "Protoplanetary Disc". Never realizing that the star itself formed the Disc. No, these stupid Old Astronomy fools, with their silly fusion would think the star picked up the ring, disc, cloud, shell in their journey through space.

AP, sorry if I sound harsh on astronomers, but you have to be like that on brainwashed fools, to jump start their mind onto the truth.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now the graph below reminds me of some other pure physics graph that looks similar. Maybe it is in thermodynamics theory. Maybe it is in radioactivity theory. Maybe some other pure physics theory. At the moment my memory is failing me as to where I seen a graph like this before.

^

|    \

|        \

|            \

|_________\______>

A graph like the above in Mathematics is of the form of a function in 10 Grid as Y = 10 - x

x      Y

0     10

1      9

2      8

Was it thermodynamics or radioactivity I ran into such a graph????????????????

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So, well this graph I made of Y--> 10 - x in 10 Grid, looking in Physics literature a similar graph can be found in the Ideal Gas law of thermodynamics of pressure versus volume, only it is a curve, not a straight line downwards.

Similarly in radioactivity, the decay follows a graph of a downward curve starting with all the atoms and with time, they decay. The curve is again not a straight line.

But the ultimate prize for me is to find a straight line downward graph for any one of the laws of Electromagnetism. Apparently the Coulomb law over short intervals of distance is just that a straight line downward graph as seen in this Britannica illustration on the Internet discussing Coulomb law.

--- quoting Britannica---

electric force between two chargesFigure 1: Electric force between two charges.

--- end quoting Britannica---

ppp
AP writes: I hope this takes on Google, for often, only Wikipedia images take.

On Saturday, January 10, 2026 at 3:04:55 AM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So, good gracious, the Britannica image took. And the reason I believe it is a straightline downward and not a curve downward is that it is a graph of simultaneous north and south magnetic monopoles, instead of one.

So, the huge huge trouble with Old Astronomy Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, is that those fools thought stars shine from Fusion, when in truth, they shine from Faraday Law going on inside every proton that resides in that star, as the muon thrusts through the proton torus, where proton = 840 MeV and muon = 105MeV.

This makes all stars, especially our Sun fit into a diagram where the y-axis is Mass of star, and the x-axis is the spectral-temperature of the star. A STRAIGHTLINE downward graph.

And where the silly stupid White Dwarfs belong in the blue star part of the graph and all those silly Red Giant stars belong in the red star part of the straightline graph. 

When stars are of different sizes, yet the same temperature, is due to the fact that Old Astronomy never recognized stars can have Rings, like Saturn has rings, around the star, making dumb astronomers here on Earth think it is a Giant star. Much in the same way that dumb astronomers would think Saturn is a giant planet almost equaling the size of our Sun because they see Saturn head on with its rings in full display.

I am reasonably sure that the true graph of a revised HR diagram is a straightline downward graph because the spectra line is directly proportional to the mass of the star doing the Faraday Law.

But it will be many months before I publish this book and have that time to settle in my mind if all is correct.

AP, King of Science