How do stable isotopes (not radioactive) form in stars and other bodies in the universe?

What are the values of R2 and Q2 for the model to be acceptable in PLS regression?

I am trying to compare the species composition between two of my sites, and have read up some similarity/dissimilarity indices. Because my data also contained abundance information, I thought of using the Bray-Curtis measure. I tried reading more about it and have found some sites interchanging 'Bray-Curtis Similarity Index', 'Sorensen Distance' and 'Bray-Curtis Distance' (suggesting that they are the same thing), whereas others have stated that these are different measures. Could anyone explain the difference or suggest a good reading? 

In a different question thread the general consensus is coming around to H index, rather than the IF factor of the Journals an academic publish their work, as being a better measure of the individuals academics performance. But what should be the H index measure be for a Professor, Associate or assistant Professor? And is it different for each discipline? A lot has been published on H index of computer Scientists, but what about biomedicine and psychology academics - let alone social scientists?

Stable isotopes are defined as non-radioactive forms of atoms and they exist naturally in the nature. I would like scholars to suggest me some literature or any other aid where I can understand how isotopes are formed, in terms of energy levels and how can we create them artificially in the lab environment. Also, how are these stable isotopes more advantageous when compared to conventional element.

There is a chance that since the moon's gravity is strongest at that point this will minimize the orbital decay. The satellite could also be placed to periodically pass through the high tide to reduce on orbital decay.

Can my idea work?

Just imagine we are having to change our planets orbit to another one for reason like reduce its temperature or preventing to crash whit foreign object

How we can do it to survive?

SN-1a data [Reiss et al., Perlmutter et al.] indicates that there is a deviation from a linear Hubble curve for data points at large distances, > 3-4 Gly. Theoretical fits are then made, based on Friedmann equations, that include a “dark energy” term, Lambda. From this fit it is shown that the rate of the expansion of the universe will lead to an accelerating universe. It is often stated that the universe is accelerating at the present time, T_0. But if one looks at the Hubble curve for only the past 2-3 billion years the Hubble curve can be fit nearly perfectly with a straight line. This indicates to me that there is no empirical evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at the present time. In other words, the Lambda -fit curve _suggests_ that the expansion is accelerating at the present time but this acceleration is, in fact, presently _not_ observed to any degree of certainty over the past few billion years.

This question relates to naturalistic explanations, because they can approach to the reality or retreat from it with time.