Yes, these comments are very valuable to me. Though keep in mind I do not understand all of it. In essence white dwarves have been a huge problem for me over the past two years. I will sum up what I think about these objects:
1. White dwarves are white. duh. There are also stars with white spectrums as well these are white stars and they fit along the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in their stages.
a. White dwarves are not "white stars". They are something else entirely, because
b. They have 300,000,000 gauss magnetic fields, which are similar to pulsars, thus
c. White dwarves as they are understood have something to do with the evolution of pulsars.
2. White dwarves are probably the source of fusion reactions as evidence by gamma rays. Is this correct? Then we can expect for,
a. any areas of extreme gamma ray radiation to be sources of "matter creation/destruction"?
b. Which then leads to the question, by determination by gamma rays along, how are we to tell the difference between gamma rays being evidence of the destruction of matter, versus the creation of matter?
3. Where in the proper sequence of events are white dwarves formed? Do they just appear out of nothing? What do they look like as they are formed?
a. What would be the smallest white dwarf that could exist and,
b. could a white dwarf gaining angular momentum signal it speeding up like a figure skater when she brings her arms in during a spin? Thus could this mean,
c. A white dwarf as it creates more and more matter will shrink considerably and start compressing the matter more and more until it becomes a pulsar? Thus strengthening its magnetic field to the point of galactic ejection? And,
d. Once it is ejected, it finally releases the matter along the magnetic field lines creating what we understand as a galaxy, similar to an acorn growing into an oak tree?
I hope I kept everything coherent. I am having lots of trouble with this, but if I find a reasonable set of conclusions concerning this I will make a quick paper to guide others. Thank you so much for your time Charles.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The alleged "millisecond rotations" of some pulsars are untenable and non-believable as physically real events. Physical matter probably cannot do that. To my knowledge EU doesn't recognize pulsars as spinning objects but posits that they are pumping out x-ray and gamma ray bursts as EM signals due to current density seeking balance by shedding charge. They're more akin to transponders or beacons in space, not fast rotating quasi/proto stars or galaxies.
Just so we are both clear I do not think light speed is a velocity. IMO it is actually an information barrier. It is the max rate of information loss. Thus there can be always slower than light speed, but never faster. For instance, if we are to send a radio message to Mars, it bounce off a reflector on Mars and come back to us from our point of view it would take between 6 and 42 minutes for a round trip, depending on where Mars is situated in reference to the Earth.
This literally means that we can not communicate in real time with Mars. This is actually very important discovery, but is abused and mis-communicated by mathematical physicists who invent things like black holes and what not. For instance, the escape velocity of a black hole is faster than light speed. But since nothing is faster than light, they are saying there is no escape velocity, thus no object present to escape from. The establishment is full of these kinds of contradictions. On one hand they claim nothing is faster than light, on the other they invoke nonsense which contradicts their previous statement!
So in other words, to say electric current can travel faster than light, would make things really messy. Too many contradictions would pop up and objects which are non-existent. Thus making the mechanisms behind pulsars ignoring a basic tenet of every day life, we will end up with things like black holes and big bangs.
On the other hand, I don't think light speed is a constant. I think it can and does fluctuate, but that its fluctuation is very small. Thus the possibility that conditions can arise in a pulsar in which the value of light speed can fluctuate, but to say electric current which travels at that very same light speed, exceeds itself, is a contradiction.
I hope this was not too wordy. I am really trying my best to explain this stuff as I understand it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: The alleged "millisecond rotations" of some pulsars are untenable and non-believable as physically real events. Physical matter probably cannot do that. To my knowledge EU doesn't recognize pulsars as spinning objects but posits that they are pumping out x-ray and gamma ray bursts as EM signals due to current density seeking balance by shedding charge. They're more akin to transponders or beacons in space, not fast rotating quasi/proto stars or galaxies.
I like the beacon explanation, but the mechanisms behind it are still confusing to me. I wish someone could make a video of the pulsar beating with the beacon explanation. That way I could visualize it. I mean, telling someone what the Sun looks like is way different than going out to the beach on a sunny day and shielding your eyes from it.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: 1. White dwarves are white. duh. There are also stars with white spectrums as well these are white stars and they fit along the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in their stages. a. White dwarves are not "white stars". They are something else entirely, because b. They have 300,000,000 gauss magnetic fields, which are similar to pulsars, thus c. White dwarves as they are understood have something to do with the evolution of pulsars.
I actually think that there are 2 types of stars: there are main sequence stars (like our Sun) which fall somewhere on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, and then there are the "exotic" stars, which have a fundamentally different property set. The exotics include: white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars/blazars, BL Lac objects, black holes, and the stars in the middle of planetary nebulae. The properties that the exotics have in common (in varying degrees) are: powerful magnetic fields, variable luminosity (i.e., pulsing), gamma rays, and bipolar jets, sometimes that are radio sources. I can show that a number of these properties are only possible if the stars are toroidal plasmoids (i.e., "natural tokamaks"). I already mentioned that only with magnetic confinement could nuclear fusion be occurring without the gamma rays getting absorbed by overlying matter, so gravitational confinement just isn't going to work. Another property of toroidal plasmoids is that 50% of the ejecta from the nuclear fusion happens to head toward the centerline of the toroid. Collisions at the centerline can only result in a collimated stream of particles shooting out along the axis. And this is the only geometry that can do this. So the bipolar jets of the exotics are another proof of the toroidal configuration.
I agree with viscount aero that pulsars cannot possibly be pulsing because of a beam of photons being emitted at their poles, which somehow gets turned into a lighthouse beacon. This is not possible for two reasons. First, there isn't any way for photons to be focused into a beam in the standard model. The Sun doesn't send out light in a beam. The magnetic fields in pulsars can't bend light. So first, we'd need a mechanism that can produce a beam. But then comes an even tougher problem. For something to be rotating rapidly around its axis, and then for the axis to be tumbling, is ignorant of the gyroscopic forces that keep rotating objects stable. Sure, axial movement could be some sort of precession. But precession moves very slowly, while pulsars have cycles in the range of 1~7000 milliseconds. That ain't precession. So I believe that pulsars are "natural tokamaks" that have fallen into an implosion/explosion cycle, wherein the fusion reactor goes into cyclic mode. So this makes it a combination of magnetic and inertial confinement. The magnetic confinement from the relativistic velocities gets the plasma packed together tightly, ready to fuse. But the heat and the ejecta from fusion disperses the plasma, extinguishing the reaction. Yet after every explosion is an implosion, and the implosion restores the pressure necessary for fusion. Hence it's cyclic inertial confinement within the larger context of magnetic confinement. The period of the cycle then just comes from the resonance frequency of plasma at that pressure, which could easily be as little as a few milliseconds.
JeffreyW wrote: 2. White dwarves are probably the source of fusion reactions as evidence by gamma rays. Is this correct? Then we can expect for, a. any areas of extreme gamma ray radiation to be sources of "matter creation/destruction"? b. Which then leads to the question, by determination by gamma rays along, how are we to tell the difference between gamma rays being evidence of the destruction of matter, versus the creation of matter?
Do you mean "creation/destruction of matter", or "fusion/fission"? Gamma rays are produced by both fusion and fission. But the exotic stars can only be nuclear fusion reactors, because there isn't a sufficient abundance of heavy elements to sustain a fission reaction, while anything lighter than iron could sustain a fusion reaction.
JeffreyW wrote: 3. Where in the proper sequence of events are white dwarves formed? Do they just appear out of nothing? What do they look like as they are formed? a. What would be the smallest white dwarf that could exist and, b. could a white dwarf gaining angular momentum signal it speeding up like a figure skater when she brings her arms in during a spin? Thus could this mean, c. A white dwarf as it creates more and more matter will shrink considerably and start compressing the matter more and more until it becomes a pulsar? Thus strengthening its magnetic field to the point of galactic ejection? And, d. Once it is ejected, it finally releases the matter along the magnetic field lines creating what we understand as a galaxy, similar to an acorn growing into an oak tree?
The development of relativistic angular velocities is an excellent question. There are a couple of possible mechanisms. One of them is that accretion spiraling inward, and ejecta spiraling outward, are going to collide. When they do, the vector product of the collision is an accelerated circular velocity.
I don't think that white dwarfs "create" matter — I think that they accrete matter. But yes, the increase in mass will increase the density of the gravitational field, which will yield a Rankine acceleration (like the acceleration of winds as they approach the eye of a hurricane).
As concerns the "ejection" of quasars from AGNs, and for another accelerator, see Quasars.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: I agree with viscount aero that pulsars cannot possibly be pulsing because of a beam of photons being emitted at their poles, which somehow gets turned into a lighthouse beacon. This is not possible for two reasons. First, there isn't any way for photons to be focused into a beam in the standard model. The Sun doesn't send out light in a beam. The magnetic fields in pulsars can't bend light. So first, we'd need a mechanism that can produce a beam. But then comes an even tougher problem. For something to be rotating rapidly around its axis, and then for the axis to be tumbling, is ignorant of the gyroscopic forces that keep rotating objects stable. Sure, axial movement could be some sort of precession. But precession moves very slowly, while pulsars have cycles in the range of 1~7000 milliseconds. That ain't precession. So I believe that pulsars are "natural tokamaks" that have fallen into an implosion/explosion cycle, wherein the fusion reactor goes into cyclic mode. So this makes it a combination of magnetic and inertial confinement. The magnetic confinement from the relativistic velocities gets the plasma packed together tightly, ready to fuse. But the heat and the ejecta from fusion disperses the plasma, extinguishing the reaction. Yet after every explosion is an implosion, and the implosion restores the pressure necessary for fusion. Hence it's cyclic inertial confinement within the larger context of magnetic confinement. The period of the cycle then just comes from the resonance frequency of plasma at that pressure, which could easily be as little as a few milliseconds.
Hello, Charles. Your thoroughness never ceases to amaze me
I didn't consider axial precession at millisecond rotations. That makes the idea of millisecond pulsars even more untenable and preposterous. Assuming there is zero precession occurring in every case (which is impossible) the millisecond rotation of a giant object such as a star is not believable even in the farthest stretch of fantasy. The x-ray/gamma/radio bursts cannot possibly be from a rotational body. And if so, how?
Your point, too, about the required formation of a specific uni-directional focused beam is curiously never mentioned in mainstream science. How is this beacon somehow compressed and focused into a beam of emission? And if so, where on the star does it eminate from? The equator? The pole? And why? How?
I like your classification of "exotic stars" and objects. You could include comets in there, too, as exotic asteroidal forms.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Your point, too, about the required formation of a specific uni-directional focused beam is curiously never mentioned in mainstream science. How is this beacon somehow compressed and focused into a beam of emission? And if so, where on the star does it emanate from? The equator? The pole? And why? How?
I don't think that the answer has to do with what produces the photons. Rather, I think that it has to do with what happens to the light after it has been produced. In other words, I can't see how the photons would be generated in a beam. But I can see how light could get refracted into a beam.
The only proven way that light can be bent is with the mirage effect. Essentially, light traveling through a density gradient gets bent toward the greater density. Out in the desert, with the hot Sun beating down on the sand, there is hotter air near the surface, and cooler air above. The hotter air is thinner. So light traveling parallel to the sand gets bent upward, toward the denser air above, in what is known as an "inferior mirage".
If this is the only way that light can be bent, and if we're suspecting that the light coming from a pulsar is getting focused into a beam, we're looking for some sort of mirage effect. How is that going to work?
We also know that pulsars produce axial jets. Those are particles, not photons. But we know that they are very well-organized (i.e., highly collimated), and stay that way, sometimes traveling many light years before getting randomized in Herbig-Haro objects. This is surely due to a magnetic pinch effect acting on the relativistic particles. Anyway, what would happen if we put on our spacesuits and went out there, into one of those axial jets, and shined a flashlight through the jet? We can expect the jet to be densest in the middle, and with the density tapering off around the outsides. So there is a radial density gradient. And what do we know about density gradients? They bend light. Which way? Toward the denser matter. Where is that? Along the axis. So if we're inside the jet and shining a flashlight, if we point it away from the axis, the light will wander out to the edge of the jet, but then it will get bent back toward the axis by the density gradient. So light that started inside the jet will tend to stay inside the jet. After a couple of light years of this, it will all come into phase, and now we have a perfectly focused beam of light. And if we consider that the source of the light is probably also the source of the particles (i.e., the nuclear fusion reactor at the center of the whole thing), it's possible that a respectable percentage of the light that is generated gets trapped inside the axial jets, and thus is focused by the mirage effect. And if the axial jet happens to be pointed right at the Earth, we'll see that beam.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Your point, too, about the required formation of a specific uni-directional focused beam is curiously never mentioned in mainstream science. How is this beacon somehow compressed and focused into a beam of emission? And if so, where on the star does it emanate from? The equator? The pole? And why? How?
I don't think that the answer has to do with what produces the photons. Rather, I think that it has to do with what happens to the light after it has been produced. In other words, I can't see how the photons would be generated in a beam. But I can see how light could get refracted into a beam.
The only proven way that light can be bent is with the mirage effect. Essentially, light traveling through a density gradient gets bent toward the greater density. Out in the desert, with the hot Sun beating down on the sand, there is hotter air near the surface, and cooler air above. The hotter air is thinner. So light traveling parallel to the sand gets bent upward, toward the denser air above, in what is known as an "inferior mirage".
If this is the only way that light can be bent, and if we're suspecting that the light coming from a pulsar is getting focused into a beam, we're looking for some sort of mirage effect. How is that going to work?
We also know that pulsars produce axial jets. Those are particles, not photons. But we know that they are very well-organized (i.e., highly collimated), and stay that way, sometimes traveling many light years before getting randomized in Herbig-Haro objects. This is surely due to a magnetic pinch effect acting on the relativistic particles. Anyway, what would happen if we put on our spacesuits and went out there, into one of those axial jets, and shined a flashlight through the jet? We can expect the jet to be densest in the middle, and with the density tapering off around the outsides. So there is a radial density gradient. And what do we know about density gradients? They bend light. Which way? Toward the denser matter. Where is that? Along the axis. So if we're inside the jet and shining a flashlight, if we point it away from the axis, the light will wander out to the edge of the jet, but then it will get bent back toward the axis by the density gradient. So light that started inside the jet will tend to stay inside the jet. After a couple of light years of this, it will all come into phase, and now we have a perfectly focused beam of light. And if we consider that the source of the light is probably also the source of the particles (i.e., the nuclear fusion reactor at the center of the whole thing), it's possible that a respectable percentage of the light that is generated gets trapped inside the axial jets, and thus is focused by the mirage effect. And if the axial jet happens to be pointed right at the Earth, we'll see that beam.
But are the pulses bi-polar? Axial jets imply a north and south pole. I thought pulsars equated to 1 burst per revolution, not 2. This idea always confused me because this requires a uni-directional focused beam of emission. Where does it come from? Also, bi-polar jets that are the emission sources would require the object rotate on its major (oblate/equatorial) axis. What would explain that?
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: But are the pulses bi-polar? Axial jets imply a north and south pole. I thought pulsars equated to 1 burst per revolution, not 2. This idea always confused me because this requires a uni-directional focused beam of emission. Where does it come from? Also, bi-polar jets that are the emission sources would require the object rotate on its major (oblate/equatorial) axis. What would explain that?
In a toroidal plasmoid, there will be two jets, one going in each direction (i.e., north and south poles). So I'm saying that inside the jets, the light generated by the nuclear fusion in the toroidal plasmoid is getting focused. So it's bipolar too. But we only see the one pointed at us. Then, if the light source is cyclic, we will observe pulses. But not because of the lighthouse beacon effect. The axial jet is pointed at us the whole time. It's the light source that flickers.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: But are the pulses bi-polar? Axial jets imply a north and south pole. I thought pulsars equated to 1 burst per revolution, not 2. This idea always confused me because this requires a uni-directional focused beam of emission. Where does it come from? Also, bi-polar jets that are the emission sources would require the object rotate on its major (oblate/equatorial) axis. What would explain that?
In a toroidal plasmoid, there will be two jets, one going in each direction (i.e., north and south poles). So I'm saying that inside the jets, the light generated by the nuclear fusion in the toroidal plasmoid is getting focused. So it's bipolar too. But we only see the one pointed at us. Then, if the light source is cyclic, we will observe pulses. But not because of the lighthouse beacon effect. The axial jet is pointed at us the whole time. It's the light source that flickers.
Ok I understand your idea a bit better now. I was mixing theories together, sorry. I agree that the emissions are pulses from a non-revolving source, similar to how a welder's arc flickers. The beam is in-line to the Earth. Conversely, the idea of a millisecond revolution of a massive star-like object is ridiculous and I can't see how science seriously considers that to be actually happening.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
There are more than 20,000 cometary knots estimated to be in the Helix Nebula. --- The Helix Nebula was the first planetary nebula discovered to contain cometary knots.[9] Its main ring contains knots of nebulosity, which have now been detected in many nearby planetaries. These knots are highly radially symmetric (from the PNN) and are described as "cometary", each containing bright cusps (local photoionization fronts) and tails. All extend away from the PNN in a radial direction. Excluding the tails, they are (very approximately) the size of the Solar system, while each of the cusp knots are optically thick due to Lyc photons from the PNN.
What are these?
The Helix Nebula is an example of a planetary nebula, or 'planetary' formed at the end of a star's evolution. Gases from the star in the surrounding space appear, from our vantage point, as if we are looking down a helix structure. The remnant central stellar core, known as a planetary nebula nucleus or PNN, is destined to become a white dwarf star. The observed glow of the central star is so energetic that it causes the previously expelled gases to brightly fluoresce.
there is an assumption that a white dwarf is an old star. With so much matter surrounding Helix, is it possible to be a young star?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
"There are more than 20,000 cometary knots estimated to be in the Helix Nebula. --- The Helix Nebula was the first planetary nebula discovered to contain cometary knots.[9] Its main ring contains knots of nebulosity, which have now been detected in many nearby planetaries.
This is a typical nonsense invention of the mainstream, using vague and casual language that doesn't describe anything, ie, "cometary knots." Is the designation of "cometary knots" officially recognized as a proper name as in the titles of "planets", "galaxies", or "quasars"? Are there "knots" in space, too, that are not cometary (like "magnetic ropes"---are there a variety of space ropes that are not magnetic?) In other words, are cometary knots newly discovered objects? I have the feeling the answer is no.
Moreover, use of a non-applicable title such as "cometary knot", assigned to such grandiose structures, is further negligent as they're not comets, they're not cometary, nor are they knots. The casual title "cometary knots" is meaningless and, worse, misleading and inappropriate. This is yet another misuse and abuse of language that we see time and time again in such nonsense terms like "flat space" or "2D object" or "planetary nebula." "Cometary knots" has no meaning.
Continuing with the excerpt:
Sparky wrote: "... These knots are highly radially symmetric (from the PNN) and are described as "cometary", each containing bright cusps (local photoionization fronts) and tails.
I thought they were "knots"? Now they are bright cusps/local ionization fronts? Why use all of these terms? What is an "ionization front"? What is often associated with ionization? Why not just come out and say it simply instead of using dodgy pseudo-intellectual language? What is a substance that ionizes? Why the avoidance of saying it?
continuing with the excerpt:
Sparky wrote: "...All extend away from the PNN in a radial direction. Excluding the tails, they are (very approximately) the size of the Solar system, while each of the cusp knots are optically thick due to Lyc photons from the PNN.
What does that mean?
Sparky wrote: What are these?
If they are each as large as the article claims, as big a solar system, they are probably heliospherical structures that are in glow mode due to their ionized environment. Imagine if the "solar wind" were in glow mode as were each planet's magnetosphere. The tableaux would resemble the structures in this nebula.
from the excerpt:
Sparky wrote:
"The Helix Nebula is an example of a planetary nebula, or 'planetary' formed at the end of a star's evolution. Gases from the star in the surrounding space appear, from our vantage point, as if we are looking down a helix structure.
They're right in that we're looking down the barrel. But they insist again on using the term "gases" to avoid taking the discussion into plasma.
Sparky wrote: "... The remnant central stellar core, known as a planetary nebula nucleus or PNN, is destined to become a white dwarf star. The observed glow of the central star is so energetic that it causes the previously expelled gases to brightly fluoresce.
This is, for me, the most reaching and laughable part of the excerpt: "The observed glow of the central star is so energetic that it causes the previously expelled gases to brightly fluoresce"--really? Do you see an observed glow from a central star that is so energetic? Where is it? Do you see a brightly energetic central star anywhere? Where is this highly energetic star? To claim furthermore that this bright central starlight (which is clearly not present) lights up the surrounding "gas" (like how a light bulb lights up a lamp shade or frosted glass cover) is absolutely childish, as if the idea came from a seven year old! That would mean, too, that this phenomena would have to occur in EVERY case where there is a nebula! This is a similar line of non-thinking when they claim that the "Einstein Cross" is a "gravitational lensing" phenomena. Were this actually what they claim then the Einstein Cross would be appearing in virtually every star in the sky!
Sparky wrote: there is an assumption that a white dwarf is an old star. With so much matter surrounding Helix, is it possible to be a young star?
Whatever it is I can bet you that it isn't what the article claims it to be!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Sparky wrote:
"There are more than 20,000 cometary knots estimated to be in the Helix Nebula. --- The Helix Nebula was the first planetary nebula discovered to contain cometary knots.[9] Its main ring contains knots of nebulosity, which have now been detected in many nearby planetaries.
This is a typical nonsense invention of the mainstream, using vague and casual language that doesn't describe anything, ie, "cometary knots." Is the designation of "cometary knots" officially recognized as a proper name as in the titles of "planets", "galaxies", or "quasars"? Are there "knots" in space, too, that are not cometary (like "magnetic ropes"---are there a variety of space ropes that are not magnetic?) In other words, are cometary knots newly discovered objects? I have the feeling the answer is no.
Moreover, use of a non-applicable title such as "cometary knot", assigned to such grandiose structures, is further negligent as they're not comets, they're not cometary, nor are they knots. The casual title "cometary knots" is meaningless and, worse, misleading and inappropriate. This is yet another misuse and abuse of language that we see time and time again in such nonsense terms like "flat space" or "2D object" or "planetary nebula." "Cometary knots" has no meaning.
Continuing with the excerpt:
Sparky wrote: "... These knots are highly radially symmetric (from the PNN) and are described as "cometary", each containing bright cusps (local photoionization fronts) and tails.
I thought they were "knots"? Now they are bright cusps/local ionization fronts? Why use all of these terms? What is an "ionization front"? What is often associated with ionization? Why not just come out and say it simply instead of using dodgy pseudo-intellectual language? What is a substance that ionizes? Why the avoidance of saying it?
continuing with the excerpt:
Sparky wrote: "...All extend away from the PNN in a radial direction. Excluding the tails, they are (very approximately) the size of the Solar system, while each of the cusp knots are optically thick due to Lyc photons from the PNN.
What does that mean?
Sparky wrote: What are these?
If they are each as large as the article claims, as big a solar system, they are probably heliospherical structures that are in glow mode due to their ionized environment. Imagine if the "solar wind" were in glow mode as were each planet's magnetosphere. The tableaux would resemble the structures in this nebula.
from the excerpt:
Sparky wrote:
"The Helix Nebula is an example of a planetary nebula, or 'planetary' formed at the end of a star's evolution. Gases from the star in the surrounding space appear, from our vantage point, as if we are looking down a helix structure.
They're right in that we're looking down the barrel. But they insist again on using the term "gases" to avoid taking the discussion into plasma.
Sparky wrote: "... The remnant central stellar core, known as a planetary nebula nucleus or PNN, is destined to become a white dwarf star. The observed glow of the central star is so energetic that it causes the previously expelled gases to brightly fluoresce.
This is, for me, the most reaching and laughable part of the excerpt: "The observed glow of the central star is so energetic that it causes the previously expelled gases to brightly fluoresce"--really? Do you see an observed glow from a central star that is so energetic? Where is it? Do you see a brightly energetic central star anywhere? Where is this highly energetic star? To claim furthermore that this bright central starlight (which is clearly not present) lights up the surrounding "gas" (like how a light bulb lights up a lamp shade or frosted glass cover) is absolutely childish, as if the idea came from a seven year old! That would mean, too, that this phenomena would have to occur in EVERY case where there is a nebula! This is a similar line of non-thinking when they claim that the "Einstein Cross" is a "gravitational lensing" phenomena. Were this actually what they claim then the Einstein Cross would be appearing in virtually every star in the sky!
Sparky wrote: there is an assumption that a white dwarf is an old star. With so much matter surrounding Helix, is it possible to be a young star?
Whatever it is I can bet you that it isn't what the article claims it to be!
err, I agree with your comments about the article, but I really wanted some educated speculation on the "comets"." And what is the possibility that a white dwarf could be a young star.?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: err, I agree with your comments about the article, but I really wanted some educated speculation on the "comets"." And what is the possibility that a white dwarf could be a young star.?
I touched on that above: "If they are each as large as the article claims, as big a solar system, they are probably heliospherical structures that are in glow mode due to their ionized environment. Imagine if the "solar wind" were in glow mode as were each planet's magnetosphere. The tableaux would resemble the structures in this nebula."
About white dwarfs, I have no idea. JeffreyW does, though
err, I agree with your comments about the article, but I really wanted some educated speculation on the "comets"." And what is the possibility that a white dwarf could be a young star.?
