Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
|
If you grab that textbook, no matter that we have an approximate handle on the evolution of very massive stars, you will still learn the basics of how stars form and the physics behind it. Without that basis, trying to understand anything else is a moot point. You won't be able to, simple as that.
The particular fusion model found in books has not been falsified at all. This has very little to do with fusion. It has everything to do with mass, composition, metallicity, and radiative energy dynamics. Fusion only provides the energy and that is a core region phenomenon. It provides the energy which drives these other processes, but what happens in the core is pretty well known.
You still don't get it....this wind is a consequence of the mature star, not the protostar which formed from the gas/dust cloud initially. These stars in the article are not protostars/pre-main sequence stars. The physics of their formation is separate from their present state.
They have focused on their empirical measurements and applied those measurements to theory, otherwise how could they come to the conclusions that they have??!!. It's the only way they could've wrote what they did....the only way any scientific paper is written, unless you set out to talk theory exclusively, in the first place. In which case, it's then a purely theoretical paper, which this one isn't.
The problem here is you have made assumptions about the theory and the empirical data within the article which cannot be supported by the science which is actually there. You need to learn about the theory first, before you can make comment on what the article presents, otherwise when you make comment, you're in a position of not knowing enough to understand what's been written, so any comment you therefore make is not informed. Regardless of what you may know about any other subject.
Anyone with half a brain and a reasonable knowledge of science could find fault in any journal article, if they so choose. Science is not about being 100% watertight in theory or even in empirical measurement of the phenomena we observe. It's about using the tools and the theory we do have to try and explain the things we observe, knowing that it maybe wrong to begin with, but also knowing that the more we do look, the chances being we're going to be right at some stage. I think our knowledge of stellar evolution and physics, whilst not 100% correct, is fairly solid. Otherwise, what would be the point of trying to understand any of it to begin with.
What do you propose is the mechanism for the formation of stars, especially these very massive ones, if you believe that present theory is inadequate or even incorrect in it's assumptions about what is happening??
However, remember, these are fully formed stars...not pre-main sequence or protostars, so you will have to separate the physics of the pre ZAMS star from their current condition.