[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by glenc

There is some more about R136a1 here: http://www.physorg.com/news198924098.html
NGC 3603 also has big stars.

Interesting comments...
"no word on the stars diameter or its density..."

I have some questions:

The existence of these monsters -- millions of times more luminous than the sun, losing weight through very powerful winds

1) Weight loss: So have you detected "weight loss" or is this an assumption from the model?

Using a combination of instruments on ESO's Very Large Telescope, astronomers have discovered the most massive stars to date, one weighing at birth more than 300 times the mass of the sun, or twice as much as the currently accepted limit of 150 solar masses.

2) You say, this is beyond the "accepted limit" so it is clearly outside of "the models" range of assumptions. Are these the same assumptions you are using to infer the "weight"?

Comparisons with models imply that several of these stars were born with masses in excess of 150 solar masses.

3) Which models? i thought 150 solar masses was the limit? Is this another way of saying "nfi"?

"Unlike humans, these stars are born heavy and lose weight as they age," says Paul Crowther. "Being a little over a million years old, the most extreme star R136a1 is already 'middle-aged' and has undergone an intense weight loss programme, shedding a fifth of its initial mass over that time, or more than fifty solar masses."

4) ok... i'll give you that one... that star is not a human.... but... Which model are you using to determine if this star is middle aged? If you have no model that fits, are you not just making speculations beyond any accepted physics?

I find the article contradictory all the way through....

Empirics:
a) it's bright... real bright...and contains spectrum of heavy elements?
b) no determination of dimensions provided in article(s)
c) can't see any mention of orbital dynamics?

Is all this just "inferred" from spectrometry and flux counts?

I suspect, you have only inferred from a broken model that you say yourself does not permit these measurements?

Very confusing!

edit: link to paper... yes inferred mass it's all from flux counts and estimates from models that as they mention, clearly don't stand up... Why not just say that?
I'm finding it really hard to swallow the "coalescing gas" model of star formation, when with all this "wind" around... and this supermassive "young" short-term stars... anyone slightly familiar with thermodynamics knows hot "wind" gas aint guna hang around long enough to form stars... totally counter intuitive.