We ended the previous page by marveling at the intriguing pulsagons (PUGs) that generate, around them, a permanent influx field (infield) punctuated by releases of periodic outflux bursts of packets of energy radiation (erad), called ergons. It is now the scope of this page to take a closer look at those intriguing PUGs that are of two types: regular and elusive. The regular ones are the hardtron while the elusive ones are the softelon.
Because each PUG generates independently an influx field (infield) around it, that will create between any two PUGs a low dense (lowden) environmental xenofluid. That lowden is the key in understanding gravity for each of the two types, (hardtron or softelon), of PUGs as revealed below.

<I> We start our PUG study with the hardtron class that is represented by the proton particle.

Let m1and m2 be any two (2) stable masses non-emitting radioactive nor termal radiations. Due to their corresponding infields created around them by their respective protons, a low dense (lowden) environmental xenofluid will be created between them. That lowden, by the Downfall law, will make those two masses to "fall" instantly, independently and concomitantly towards the middle of that created lowden. And that instantaneous "strange fall" (called xenofall) towards each other, due to lowden, is what is known today as the gravity. Thus, gravity is not a force of anything, but is a conduit condition (concon) making any two distant masses to move or "fall" instantaneously towards each other. Thus, a force of gravity, per se, does not exist in Nature. What it does exist however is a concon for the two masses, regardless of how distant apart they may be, to instantaneously be made to move (aka to xenofall) one towards the other. As such, to stress again, There is no force of gravitation, nor is there, as such, a speed of gravity... To reflect that protons are underneath connected to the formation of gravity, we call them in here as gravitons. And, We call gravitational conduit (gravicon), the lowden generated from gravitons. Let's now note that Newton's celebrated gravitational formula is nothing but the Inverse-Square Law of Nature (ISLON). It represents ISLON as a stunningly correct measurement of the apparent attraction that appears to exist between any two masses situated apart at a distance r. That is an apparent and not a real attraction exerted by the two masses. And that is because their "slide" towards their common lowden center is being masked as an attraction between them which clearly it is not. There is no such an inner attraction between them, but what it is --is an independent and concomitant "slide" towards each other, into their common lowden pursuant to the Downlev --that ultimate physical law of Nature (UPLON). Recaping on the nature of Gravity: Gravity, as stated, is NOT a force per se, but is a conduit condition (concon) that generate any two distant masses to move or "slide" instantaneously towards the center of their common gravicon. .

On Newton's Stunning Recognition of Gravity's Underneath Substratum At the end of his seminal Opticks book, Newton concludes with the posting of a number Queries "in order to a farther search to be made by others." [Opticks, Dover Publ., 1952, p. 339.] And in Query 21, [ibidem, pp. 350-351], Newton "dances" with these ideas that are indeed identical to the ones cemented here in our theory of gravity whose underneath is Downlev: Is it not that "... every Body ... go(es) from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?", and That "if the elastick force of this Medium be exceeding great, it may suffice to impel Bodies from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer, with all that power which we call Gravity." [Underline supplied.} Additional Fundamental Remarks:  1. As already noted, Newton's formula of universal gravitation (above) is nothing else but a geometrical application (in an Euclidean space) of a point source (S) spreading its influence equally, in all directions, obeying the Inverse-Square Law of Nature (ISLON).  2. Erroneously, it has been assumed that gravity is being transmitted instantaneously, when in fact, as stressed above, there is no transmission to begin with. That error springs from the fact of lacking the recognition that each individual material object starts generating its own independent inwards infield. As such, any two (2) masses generate between them an environmental depression, the lowden, which will make them to "slide" instantly and simultaneously towards the center of their created environmental xenofluid depression, appearing, as such, that by moving towards each other, an attraction force will exist between those two masses.  3. Is Newton's Law of Gravitation Really Univeresal? Well, the long belief that gravity is a universal phenomenon of Nature is now being challenged and terminated in here. No, it is not universal, is the simple answer, as expanded below: Not all masses produce gravity. And that is because, as we have seen, gravity manifests its existence only when masses can produce between them a low-density (lowden) zone. Gravity is that sliding xenofall phenomenon of masses, running or gliding towards the center of lowden by the Downfall law, and nothing else... However, radioactive masses or "hot" thermal masses (like stars) that emit caloric heat will not generate a lowden zone between them, but it will generate a high-density (highden) zone, making them to run (or stay as much away) from each other, again by the Downfall law! From all this, it follows not only that the Newton's Law of Gravity is NOT universal, but also that is a particular case of the Downfall universal law of Nature (DULON)! And YES, for any two (2) stable "hot" masses like the stars, their emitted thermal field radiation is their antidote to their mutal gravity!  4.  A fundamental theoretical novel result that begins to emerge is the direct relationship that does exist between Temperature and the strenght of Gravity: the higher the temperature of the masses involved, the smaller the value of gravity between them is going to be, and vice versa. That is to say that on the contrary, the lower the temperature of the object will be, the greater the value of gravity between them is going to be. And that is because the gravity value is function of the depth of the lowden or of hight of highden. Arguably,  all this relationship can be verified experimentally with the classic Cavendish Twist Scale. Is the similarity of the inverse square formula in Newton's law of Gravity with that of Coulomb's law of Electrostatics a serendipitous occurrence? Well, today that similarity is being attributed to the Euclidean geometric structure of space as noted by us in ISLON (Inverse-Square Law Of Nature). The real question however is WHY those two (2) phenomena (gravity and electricity) obey ISLON? And the answer to that is that both subscribe to the same underlying lowden/highden physical theory dictated by Downfall/DULON.  5. As already alluded, much confusion still exists with respect to the physical nature of Newton's gravitational constant G. Nowaday, that big G is being defined as an empirical "proportionality" constant leaving asides its physical nature. Newton himself was silent on the exact physical nature of the big G. In his seminal Principia (ibidem, Vol I, p. 198, Proposition LXXYI, Theorem XXXVI), he only talks about a "proportionality" that exists in his gravitational formula given in a 2-sphere example, as follows: "... the attractive force of every point decreases as the square of the distance of the body attracted: I say, that the whole force with which one of these spheres attracts the other will be inversely proportional to the square of the distance of the centers." [underline supplied] Furthermore, it should be noted, that in Newton's theory of gravitation (as oppose to the one provided in TRUTON), there is no mediator of gravity that is being provided nor was there an explanation provided of HOW gravity is being transmitted, transported or conveyed. On the Physical Connotation of Newton's Proportionality Constant G The "bottom" of the xenofluid (XF) medium is the non-stretchable xenobase (XB)-medium.     H. Cavendish The ratio of the density (D) of the xenofluid (XF) to the density (D) of the xenobase (XB) is known today as the specific gravity (SG). Thus, for a given volume V, we can write that SG(V)=D(XF)/D(XB). That SG is no other than the big G from the Newton's formula of gravity. (By the way, it is worth mentioning that Henry Cavendish when performed his famous experiment attributed to be the first who measured the big G, measured in fact the specific gravity of the Earth.) The existence of G is a direct reflection that gravity can exist only in a material environmental medium (aka, the xenofluid medium) that must have a stable impenetrable bottom density that only the non-stretchable xenobase (XB) platform can provide. Newton's gravitational constant G stays quasi-constant in a particular quasi-constant environmental xenofluid (eXF) medium. However, the value of that constant G is lower or higher if the eXF is a lowden or a high dense xenofluid medium, respectively. As such, the value of the big G is not the same throughout the Universe being therefore a "local" rather than a "global" or "universal" constant. Footnote: Over some 40 years, Newton's gravitational constant G has been measured about a dozen of times. Those measurements appear to show that Newton's gravitational constant G is not quite constant exhibiting in fact a cyclic fluctuation of a periodicity of 5.9 years. See for instance, the 2015 posting in <phys.org> entitled "Why Do Measurements of the Gravitational Constant Vary So Much?" by Lisa Zyga or the 2015 paper of J. D. Anderson, et al. entitled "Measurements of Newton's Gravitational Constant and the Length of Day" in EuroPhysics Letter (EPL) 110 (2015) 10002. How this can be? The explanation of those cyclical variations for the value of the gravitational constant G obtained here, on Earth, is that here on Earth, we are subject to (and at the mercy of) a fluctuating solar irradiance that is part of the solar 11-year period cyclical activity. And that solar cyclical activity is being transmitted to us in the form of cyclical fluctuations in the content of our surrounding environmental xenofluid (eXF) medium. Due to that fluctuated solar cyclical activity, the Earth's rotation around its axis of spin compounded with the tidal friction of the Moon is being fluctuated, accordingly. The constant G measured on Earth, of course, cannot remain immune and is being affected, as well. How exactly the 5.9-year cyclicality in the value of G is being obtained, that is about half of the 11-year solar cycle, is still an open question that needs to be worked out.

Galileo Galilei, A Giant Among Giants...

.Aside from elucidating the nature of the gravitational constant G, another much older issue with gravity was the one with respect to the gravitational acceleration g that, for some two milenia, has held the Aristotle's view that objects fall to Earth at a speed that is proportional to their weights: the heavier they are, the greater their falling speeds would be.

Galileo Galilei:	.

It was the genius of Galileo Galilei that, for the fist time, challenged and demolished that long held Aristotelian view on the gravitational acceleration g, by recognizing --before the existence of Newton's gravitational theory-- that in fact, two or more masses of different weights dropped, at the same time from the same height, will fall on Earth's surface at the same time, defying thus, in a rather blatant way not only the Aristotelian view, but also, quite frankly, our own given Common Sense!

How such a thing is possible to be, as our Common Sense (comsen) will show outright strong reservation on Galileo's radical pronouncement?
Why not, one may ask, a heavier mass is not being pulled more forcefully by the Earth's gravity than that of a lighter one?

Galileo conducted a number of experiments with rolling balls of different weights on down inclined planes. He found that all balls fell with the same acceleration rate regardless of their weight! From those rather simple experiments, Gallileo extended mentally those results from inclined plans to vertical ones resulting to envision that objects of different weights, when dropped simultaneously from an arbitrary altitude will reach the Earth's surface at the same time regardless of their weight. WOW!

That truly remarkable visualization and recognition by Galileo Galilei is now being cemented anew through logic and deductive reasoning, one supplied by Galileo himself, the other supplied by us.

We start by asking this basic gravitational question:

If an object has more mass, then WHY not a heavier mass will fall faster than a lighter one as dictated by our comsen that happens to be in concert with the view of Aristotle? In other words, WHY should we accept Galileo's radical pronouncement that objects of different masses will fall to Earth at the same time, all with the same speed?

Well, we answer this, as Galileo did, using our given logic through a method, widely used now in Mathematics, called Reductio ad Absurdum and formulate

Galileo's Free Fall Gravitational Theory for Objects Close to Earth's Surface

Regardless of their masses or sizes, all objects near the surface of Earth, when dropped from the same altitude, will fall to Earth at the same speed. In the mathematical lingo, that principle can be expressed by saying that Material objects near the Earth's surface, regardles of their masses or sizes, are equivalent modulo Earth's gravitational acceleration g.

Proofs by"Reductio ad Absurdum": (A 'Reduction to the Absurd' Proof or 'Proof by Contradiction') is the proof where it is assumed that the contrary is true and using deductive reasoning, we reach an absurdity. We begin our proofs with the assumption that Aristotle's doctrine is true, i.e., that the heavier objects fall faster than the lighter ones. Proof 1 by Galileo Galilei: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." .In his celebrated book "Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences," [¶ 109, p.64], Galileo advanced a stunningly beautiful argument against Aristotle's view of falling bodies, a proof that now is being paraphrased below. .Assuming that the Aristotle's proposition was true, Galileo suggested a truly beautiful thought experiment encapsulated as follows: .Suppose we have two stones, the first (Stone-1) being heavier than the second (Stone-2). According to Aristotle, as we drop the two stones, the Stone-1 by being heavier than Stone-2, will fall more rapidly. .Now, if the two stones are tied together (say, by a rope), argues Galileo, then the combined object (COMBO) should fall faster (by Aristotle) than Stone-1 because it is heavier. .Yet, on the other hand, the Stone-2 by being lighter than Stone-1, will fall slower (also by Aristotle) than Stone-1 creating thus a drag (like a parachute, if you will) slowing down the COMBO. So, for the created COMBO, we reached two oposite contradictory outcomes. .The naked absurdity of Aristotle's proposition is now in full view, for anyone to see. Proof 2: Let's assume that we have three (3) identical balls of exactly the same mass and let drop them from say, a leaning tower. They, of course, will reach the ground at the same time. .Now, let us repeat that experiment tying together two of the balls before dropping them again from the same place. The combined object (COMBO) of the two tied balls will, of course, be twice as heavy than the third loose ball. .Now, if we subscribe to the Aristotle doctrine, then the created COMBO with the two tied balls will fall faster. But that is an absurdity, as it implies that the tied balls fall faster than the ones that are not tied. Remark: From this rather simple proof, it follows the important recognition that the components (or parts, say atoms) of a material objects are subject to the same rate of gravitational acceleration as the whole object. QED.  Addendum: .With the advent of Newton's theory of universal gravitation, his celebrated formula is: F=GmM/R2 that can be written as F=m(GM/R2), where M is Earth's mass, m is the mass of an object, R is the altitude of that object from Earth's surface, and G is the gravitational constant. .Comparing that formula with Newton's F=ma, where a is the mass's inertial acceleration (that now transforms into the gravitational acceleration g), we get that a=(GM/R2)=g. .Thus, the gravitational acceleration g=a is the same regardless of the value of the object's mass m, (as g, in the formula above, is not a function of m). The First Corollary of Galileo's Principle: The Equivalence Principle Newton's gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent. Because Newton's gravitational acceleration (g) and his inertial acceleration (a) are the same, the equivalence between Newton's gravitational mass and his inertial mass is a straightforward consequence. .

On the Fine Tuning of Galileo's Free Fall Gravitational Theory   So far, we have recognized that Galileo's Free Fall Gravitational Theory must exist because the logic of our cultivated Mind will dictate so. Now, we want to go one step further in examining that free fall. The Earth, by being a spinning entity, will have its gravitational field the under the influence of the Coriolis effect that will generate a minute transversal deflection that is not function of the distance from Earth's surface. And that minute Coriolis transversal field deflection is being now recognized in   The Galileo-Coriolis Principle (GACOP) Applied to Earth's Gravity The Coriolis effect resulted from the Earth's spin, will induce its free-falling objects to fall in a slightly deflected path. . Remark: Spin, as the primal tool of creation (PRITOC), is characteristic to all objects at both, cosmic and atomic, hierarchical levels. The energy fields, the ergofields (erFs), associated with those objects are all "subjugated" to the influence of the Coriolis effect. And those ergofields could be not only gravitational, but also caloric in nature. As such, a particular interest will constitutes the case when we study the Coriolis effect of two massive spinning objects that emanate caloric fields, such as the interaction of two stars. And an equally interesting case is at the nano/atomic level, where the study involves the interaction between two pulsagons (PUGs). As related to the spinning Earth, particular interest of the role of the Coriolis effect is to be found in Meteorology with the study of rotating storms (hurricanes, cyclones, or typhoons). .

.

<II> The other class of PUGs are the softelons that were recognized to be the photons which, because they were endowed from their birth with ergo-evergy (erE), were also called alternatively as ergolons.

The photons, because are softelons, they generate inflow fields (in spite that they are nullons i.e., massless) that parallel the protons and, as such, are being called in here gravions to parallel with the gravons for the protons.

Remark: The deflection of Light around the Sun is now simply explained from the fact that the Light's photons are gravions.

Finally, the corresponding conduit paved by the massless gravions is called gravinet that parallels the conduit paved protons, the gravicon.

---

With that, we are now encapsulating our findings in

The Eleventh Foundational Universal Recognition Of Nature (11th FURON): Hardtron (aka Proton) is the Unit Generator of Regular Gravity and Softelon (aka Photon) is the Unit Generator of Elusive Gravity

---

On the Creation Of the Primal Atom --The Hydrogen and Of the Primal Composite Particle --The Neutron

Continuing with our look at the amazing pulsagons (PUGs) that were ultimately responsible for the creation of the plain and the elusuve matter (elma), of gravity (plain and elusive) and of the caloric heat, we note now, in addition, of another major role that they play in shapping up Nature. And that additional contribution is vested in their pivotal role in the creation of the very first primal atom (PRIMATOM) of matter --the Hydrogen (H) as described below.

Armed with the pivotal recognition that the collision is the primeval initiator and agent of creation (PIAC), we turn now our attention to primons (PRIMs), i.e., to PUGs and electrons (ELs) --the particles that were being formed in an embryonal spinoverse (aka, an embryonal universe in the embryonal Nature --the Embryna).
To see if primons (PRIMs) can be engaged in collisions with themselves, we need first to spell out the conditions that need to exist for particle collisions (PACOLs) to take place. After that, we need to determine what kind of collisions need to exist in order to produce stable new formations. So, as you can see, we have a full plate in front of us!

Recognizing that not all particles and types of motion could result in collisions, we start therefore with introducing some primal parameters that will narrow and limit that field of possibilities to guarantee in the end the presence of PACOLs.
As such, we introduce now the set of preliminary conducive requirements (PRECORs) that need to exist for establishing the creation of PACOLs.

i) first, the primal condition is that the particles involved be permanently stable so that unlimited time be available for them to be engaged in collisins; ii) second, that those particles need not be stationary, but perpetually be in motion; and iii) third, last but not least, that their motion not be all unidirectional, but that, some of them, be able to reverse course and move backwards, in the exact opposite direction, generating, as such, collision tracks.

Now, to be able to continue moving forward on our trutonian path, we need to establish (aka to prove) that all PRIMs subscribe to PRECOR. Well, as a result of the 10th FURON, this is in fact a fait accompli. As such, through the prism of PRECOR, we now can formulate

The First Theorem of Primons

All primons (i.e., the PUGs and the electrons) are PRECOR compliant particles. In the mathematical lingo, this can be expressed by saying that All primons are equivalent modulo PRECOR.

Proof: The permanent stability and mobility of primons (PRIMs) has been established in the 10th FURON. Now, with respect to proving their directional and reversal mobility, we note this much below: 1. For pulsagons (PUGs) Initially, PUGs, as noted in their permanent mobility (PERMO), are following a well defined pattern of an outward accelerated motion, moving away from the axis of spin (AOS) of the spinoflon (sFL). .Now, those PUGs that have not yet perished (by not reaching the critical speed of disintegration) during their accelerated motions, will be ultimately stopped at the "frontier" by the encountered internal basenet facet of sFL and hence, will bounce back being now engaged into a decelerated inward motion towards the AOS of sFL. It is a decelerated motion because of the continued presence of the outward centrifugal (CF) force of the spinning sFL. 2. For the Electron Since the electron was born in a spinning spinoflon (sFL) whose axis of spin (AOS) is outside of the electron's inerior, its outward accelerated mobilty, away from sFL's AOS, is derived from GUTOM (point-2). .Now, as in the case of PUGs, if the electron in its outward accelerated motion has not yet reached the critical speed of disintegration, then by reaching the internal basenet facet of the spinoflon (sFL), the electron will bounce back and begin its retrograde decelerated motion towards the AOS of sFL. QED.

Inevitably, by being PRECOR compliant, some primons (PRIMs) will collide one into another. The question now is

first, to discover which type (or types) of PRIMs, upon collisions, are more relevant for resulting in the formation of stable combined aggregate, and then, second, to determine which type (or types) of collisions for those PRIMs are best suited for that endevour.

Well, because of their outflux flash moments, the PUGs colliding with themselves are being ruled out as they cannot end up generating a stable creation. Also, the collisions between electrons are being ruled out as well, because of the existence of their xenobase buffer zone (XB-BUZO) that will prohibit them to be in close contact. As such, the only remaining encounters that can result in generating stable combinations, are the collisions between the PUGs and the electrons as detailed below.

Hardtrons, aka the protons, have the distinction that their charge is opposite, but exactly equal, to that of the electron, as both respective charges (the proton's SAT-COV and the electron's XB-BUZO) contain the same amount of xenosubstance (XS). As such, a collision between those two masstrons is promising as their combined charges creates a platform of neutral stability. Now, following on that line of inquiry, we need first to establish what kind or type of collisions would be necessary for that end to produce a new stable creation.

Well, from all types of collisions, we note that the collisions at angle (ANGUs), by being by far the most numerous, have the additional distinction that they will produce a spin --the primal tool of creation (PRITOC). Now, since the proton is much more massive than the electron, the outcome of such a collision between a proton and an electron is dependent on the collision's speed of entry as both the proton and the electron are moving particles as recognized in the 10th FURON. As such,

Sir James Chadwick Neutron's symbol ("=")

= • 1) For a low speed of collision entry, the electron will be sucked in by the proton's inflow field (infield). The electron's XB-BUZO will loose its identity transforming itself into an ergo-cover, called ergonet, that envelopes both the stripped naked electron (nakel) and the naked proton (nakep). That ergonet recalibration, called ergocalibration (ERCA), envelops now a newly created formation of the nkaed proton and electron that were stripped of their respective charges. The ERCA consists in calibrating itself until the ergolib (erLib) of newly created formation reaches the ergolib of its environment. On the Neutron's Formation and Stability That newly ergo-calibrated unit, denoted with the equal sign ("="), is indeed the today's named neutron (NT) that was discovered in 1932 by Sir James Chadwick.  . A "free" neutron, once formed, cannot stay too long stable before is breaking-up. And that break-up occurs because of the DownLevel (Downlev) law of the environmental ERGOLEV. The stability of the neutron can only be sustained in the interior of an atomic nucleus, called nucletron or simply NUC. And that is because there, in the NUC, its ergolib (erLib) is below the ergobase (erB) being thus below the reach of Downlev that acts only in the ergosea (erS) and thus only above the xenobase (XB) line as noted herein. Clarification on the Neutron Model In our model, the neutron (NT) is the alliance between an electron and a proton, stripped of their charges, that have been united under an ergonet that is controlled by ERCA. This model of ours is very similar to, and yet quite different from, the Heisenberg proton-electron model that considered proton and electron, in their "blind" union, able to preserve their respective identities notwithstanding the fact that such a "blind" union or alliance was prohibited by the uncertainty principle of Quantum Mechanics that, in the end, was accepted to be a fundamental atomic law of Nature [sic!]. Here, in our theory, the proton and the electron in the neutron, have lost their respective identities since they have been stripped by their charges. In Heisenberg's lingo, we have "loose" electrons surrounding the atom's nucleus and have "nuclear" or "bound" electrons (with protons) in the interior of the neutron. In our theory, as stated, in their union in the neutron, the charge of the electron, as the one of the proton, does not exist anymore. We can talk, as such, of the naked electron (nakel) and proton (nakep) forming the neutron. • 2) For a high speed of collision entry, the electron will preserve its identity and it will orbit around the proton generating the Hydrogen Atom (abbreviated as Hydrotom). Now, in this case, because the proton at regular intervals of time will emit an ergon, the electron's orbit will have a Zig-Zag wave-like pattern. Electron's Zig-Zag wave-like clouded orbit, its clobit. The Hydrogen Atom, the Hydrotom as viewed under magnification through a special "photoionization microscope" described in the "Physical Review Letters" (week ending 24 May 2013; PRL 110, 213001). Because of the electron's XB-BUZO, its Zig-Zag wave-like orbit is said to be clouded. We can talk thus about the electron's clouded orbit called clobit.

Finally, continuing still with our look at pulsagons (PUGs) in general, and at the protons (PRs) in particular, we offer now a glimpse into the

Star Formation

At the nano-scale, the proton's inner contribution is indeed truly spectacular. There, the proton is able to create in its influx phase a gravitational field (infield) and, in its outflux flash phase, a caloric field (CAFI).

With the arrival of Hydrogen atoms (hydrotoms) embedded in the environmental xenofluid (eXF) of a spinning spinoflon (sFL), the formed Hydrogen clouds (abbreviated as HydroClouds) will begin to contract as a result of their internal gravitational collapse generated by their existing hydrotoms.

Sir William Crookes

Irving Langmuir

Some of those HydroClouds will collide one into another generating through accretion mega-structures, i.e., mega-HydroClouds, that through their internal gravitational collapse will further increase their density and temperature.

Hence, there will exist a point when that temperature will become so high that, by the Pop-Up Principle Of Creation (PUPOC), a new qualitative hot "radiant matter," called radma, will emerge, as recognized first in 1879 by Sir William Crookes, and called later called as plasma in 1928 by Irving Langmuir. That new state of matter created is able to preserve its identity through its increased inner gravity created. As such, as a result of the radma or plasma's existence, a new radiant cosmic object has been created --the embryonal cosmic star.

As such, from PUPOC, a monumental recognition has shaped up: the creation of a new qualitative object --the cosmic star:

	The Twelfth Foundational Universal Recognition Of Nature (12th FURON):  The Engine of Star Formation as the End -Result of the Continuous Cumulative Gravitational Collapse of Mega-HydroClouds (Created from Multiple HydroCloud Collisions)
Stars are being created from a continuous gravitational contraction of massive mega-HydroClouds that emerged from accretion of various HydroCloud collisions.
Remarks:    G. W. F. Hegel 1. We noted that the new radma or plasma state of matter emerged as a result of a continuos gravitational contraction of mega-HydroClouds that resulted in their continuous increase of their density and temperature. But their continuous unidirectional increase of their two physical parameters (density and temperature), and nothing else, is truly remarkable as is in concert with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's staggering general metaphysical pronouncement or Principle of Creation (POC) encapsulated in his dialectical principle of transition from quantity to quality: "quantitative change leads to qualitative change." Hegel's POC "quantity-quality" Metaphysical Transitional Principle, mirrored in Nature, stands in fact at Nature's foundation of its base-level platform of Creation. As such, we now elevate and transcend, from Mind to Nature, Hegel's POC Principle into  The Sixteen Universal Transcendental Principle Of TRUTON (16th UTPOT):  On the Universal Transitional Principle Of Creation (UTPOC) A quantitative physical parameter cannot increase nor decrease indefinitely without leading to the creation of a qualitative change via the Pop-Up Principle Of Creation (PUPOC). 2. Because stars are the byproduct of collisions, it follows The Thirteenth Foundational Universal Recognition Of Nature (13th FURON):  All Stars are Uneven Spinning Plasma Formations. The proof of this, springs from the recognition that a star is the byproduct of HydroClouds collisions and of uneven self-gravitational contractions that will generate an uneven spin for the created star's plasma mass. As such, we come to the important recognition that stars are born with a spin.

With the apparition of stars, the landscape of Nature has changed forever in a most dramatic way. Not only that Nature has acquired visible light and caloric heat, but also that it has acquired, in its interstellar space, complex chemical elements.

The origin of the complex chemical elements in Nature, as anything else, has had nothing to do with the speculative and ludicrous Big-Bang cosmological theory of Nature whose start (or the beginning) was purported to have been of an out-of-the-blue point of infinite temperature and mass density that began somehow to decompress, arguably after its compressional constrain was no longer in existence. (BTW, infinite parameters do not exist in Nature as they can be associated only to the mental objects (aka, to the mentalons) and, as such, they do not belong in Physics. In the abstract, but not in the physical, methodology of science, their proper place of residence is not in here but in Mathematics.)

The connection between the activity of a formed star, as a spewing "furnace," and the origin of complex chemical elements in Nature is now being cemented into

	The Fourteenth Foundational Universal Recognition Of Nature (14th FURON):  Stars as Spewing Furnaces of Complex Chemical Elements in Nature

More complex formations, leading to complex chemical elements, were able to be formed out of various hydrotom collisions, but those new encounters in stars are now in a qualitatively new medium -- the star's plasma medium. And that is a totally new and different scenario contrasted to what we have been using so far --the xenofluid medium. Now, we have the plasma "radiant" medium of the interior of stars that is indeed a very different qualitative environment.

The current theory explaining the creation (nucleosynthesis) of chemical elements in stars is through the nuclear fusion reactions between its atoms within the star, starting first with the burning its Hydrogen, then with its Helium, and continuing progressively with the burning its higher elements. That existing theoretical roadmap to be legitimate must have, at its underlying foundation, the physical mechanism of creation via causality --the backbone of TRUTON.

What the electron atomic structures of those complex chemical elements actually are, and why their atomic electron trajectories subscribe to particular configurations --are questions that need to have a clear rational answer. Those and related questions need indeed not be camouflaged by a nilly-willy speculative mathematical atomic theory that the current nonsensical hocus-pocus Quantum Mechanics provides. Mathematical theories, by themselves, cannot be let to stand alone without any Physics or justification underneath them, as they will remain, at best, just that: willy-nilly mathematical theories and nothing else!

The postulated electron configuration of the so-called shell "orbitals" model of Quantum Mechanics is in fact a preeminent example of a convoluted speculative unfounded physical theory of Nature whose results are being derived from some advanced mumbo-jumbo mathematics to look very scientific.
Erwin Schrödinger, one of the founder of Quantum Mechanics, reflecting on his mathematical work and on the absurd implications that his mathematical quantum theory (maquat) has reached, is quoted to have said:

"I don't like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it." Schrödinger's cat that could be dead and alive at the same time [sic!] ... and being in two (2) boxes at once [sic!] Max Planck A sort of mea culpa comes also from another Quantum Mechanics (QM) luminary, the noted Nobel Laureate in Physics, Steven Weinberg, who in his article "The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics" (posted in the January 19, 2017 issue of "The New York Review"; pp. 1 and 5, respectively) openly reveals that: • "Today, despite the great [experimental] success of quantum mechanics, arguments continue about its meaning, and its future." • And when faced with the question: "What then must be done about the shortcomings of quantum mechanics?" we get from him the beloved answer of Richard Feynman: • "One reasonable response is contained in the legendary advice to inquiring students: 'Shut up and calculate!' [sic!]. There is no argument about how to use quantum mechanics, only how to describe what it means, so perhaps the problem is merely one of words" [sic!]. The problem of QM is not with the words, but is with the reasoning and its fallacious foundation, for crying out loud. Meaningless, mathematical theories purporting to describe Nature have no place in Natural Sciences. It is indeed, long overdue burying for good Quantum Mechanics, if Physics is to come out of its current quagmire. The current Quantum Mechanics, by being devoid of physical meaning, stands as a mathematical ghost-like phantasmal entity detached from the physical material world of Nature. Its burial place should be on the grounds of the Murky Zone of Physics (Muzop). The birth of its trutonian replacement, the Quantonian Mechanics (or Quantonics) is ready to emerge and take its rightful place in Physics. Mathematics should never ever dictate Physics. It always should be the other way around!

.