Quote:
|
The theoretical limit at which the radiation pressure of a light-emitting body would exceed the body's gravitational attraction. A star emitting radiation at greater than the Eddington limit would break up. This would happen, for example, to a star of more than about 120 solar masses, or to the Sun if its luminosity were increased by a factor of 30,000. The Eddington limit, named after Arthur Eddington, is given by
|
ok... so we now have a star WAY WAY WAY beyond this limit...
what would be the point of 'grabbing a text book'?
This particular fusion model (found in books) HAS BEEN FALSIFIED by this article!
Quote:
|
That wind they're talking about isn't what you think. It's the continuum wind that blows all the time around these stars. It's like an "uber" solar wind, except the driving mechanism is somewhat different.
|
Sure... how are 2 hydrogen atoms in this "wind" seriously going to contemplate paying attention to their pathetic gravity to form a star.
Sorry whatever type of wind it is (and all we have to compare is a solar plasma sheath driven by charged particles from the star)... it's counter intuitive to *some* coalescing gravity gas models (and yes many have now moved away from endorsing these models).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by renormalised
The only way to determine the star's size is via spectroscopic analysis. Even in a wide binary, you still need a spectroscope to determine the orbital velocity of the star, apart from other characteristics. And at the distance this star is at, you're not going to be able to directly measure it's angular diameter....it's just too far away. So, you can determine it's size from stellar theory and what measurements you can and do take.
|
Thanks Carl, pretty much sums up my concerns of what they say "IS".
Yes! I agree, It's totally fluid, although it is clearly not presented this way in articles. Instead of focusing on their empirical measurements, they have invoked theories which THEY STATE are violated, then drum a story.
Quote:
|
Just because a human says the biggest a star can get is around 150 solar masses doesnt make it correct.
|
Sorry no, models will need to have an empirical basis with known physics... otherwise it's just wild liquid conjecture. Yes it's a part of science, but it's weak science to rely on.
Quote:
|
How do we know a limmit on star size even exists?
|
Lets be very clear, these masses are Man's inference of star mass... as they say it violates current accepted limits.
maybe i'm expecting to much from these press releases...
"MOST MASSIVIST STAR" ohh wow.... move along.