Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Actually, it's more likely to coalesce in that environment than it otherwise would because of all the interactions that are going on. The high energy radiation in those areas tends to form shock waves and turbulence which causes Bok globules and such to contract when they run into them. However, that ionising radiation can also destroy them as well, so it's a matter of balance and good luck (plus, just how dense the globules are and how big they are, etc). Once the clouds exceed their Jeans Masses, gravity can do a very good job of holding onto the material to form the stars. However, to form those really big stars, they have to be in high energy, dense environments because once stars start to form, it's easy to form smaller stars than larger ones. The clouds tend to fragment into smaller protostars because of the internal dynamics of the globules and to form the larger stars, the surrounding conditions have to balance out those internal dynamics. Usually, clouds of relatively high metallicity form smaller stars as their Jeans Masses are relatively low before they begin collapse.
Those monsters in R136 probably formed out of protostellar clouds with Jeans Masses up around the 5000-10000 solar masses before the clouds began to contract and fragment into protostars. The low metallicity means the clouds were far more transparent to radiation than a typical cloud in the Galaxy and their cores were less dense when collapse begins. Because of the properties of the gases they formed out of, the protostars in these large clouds stay relatively large and the clouds don't fragment as much. Hence, larger stars.
|
Carl what is the role of charge separation here?
As we know the Solar Wind accelerates as result of charge separation.... you talk of "pressure waves"?, i'm just wondering now we have high collisions and lots of "ionising radiation".... so charge separation has developed.... and a circuit will build... thus forming the Birkeland filaments and current sheets...
How does this charge separation feature in the model, id be interested to see how this is (or is not) currently incorporated in mainstream models?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lez
Alex, with respect, it seems to me that you are approaching this story from the point of view that if something a little surprising is observed then that means the baby has to go out with the bath-water -- which isn't so. In fact this particular finding (observation) is not completely surprising based on the way the models and observations have been moving over the last 10-20 years.
|
I guess i might just be hoping for some solid predictions to come from these models Lez, rather than the patch it up and move along.
If your limit is X... then it's now been popped to 2X.... whats next 10X? All good... but it seems to fluid to pay attention to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lez
And Alex, are you willing to take up Carl’s earlier invitation: “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??
|
I'm not sure if this is trollish...
I see no need to have an alternate theory if your current one is not making predictions that match measurements. I guess it may depend if one can sleep without a feel good saftey blanket.
I have explored Hanne's Alfven's, Ralph Jeurgen's, Wallace Thornhill's, Dr Don Scotts, models of electric stars, which actually make predictions of both this variety and also variability, and have the advantage of lab physics empiricism.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
Particularly interesting in this case is the variability predictions of the models:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
Quote:
Mainstream astronomy attempts to describe how stars 'age' (run out of nuclear fuel) and slowly migrate, taking hundreds of thousands of years to do so, tracing paths from one location on the HR diagram to another (the star going from one spectral class to another). The paths that stars 'must take' are, of course, completely predicated on the assumption that stars are fueled by the various stages of nuclear fusion of the lightest elements.
The ES model does not make that assumption. Humans have not been around long enough to actually observe any stars making the predicted slow migrations from one place on the HR diagram to another. So, at present, slow "stellar evolution" is another one of those complicated theoretical constructs that live brightly in the minds of astrophysicists without any observational evidence of their actual existence.
|
Both models, the standard and the electric make some distinctly different predictions with regard to stellar evolution.
I see these differences as being testable.
NASA now has now involved Don Scott, in exploring these hypothesis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI-X215A8Y