But the stellar evolution theory was settled science. Are these researchers deniers?

But the stellar evolution theory was settled science. Are these researchers deniers?

Nothing is settled in science. Anything can still be improved. Models are only approximate and better approximations are possible.

As technology improves scientists are finding out how little they know..
lots of supposition and conjecture.

Seems to me mackita is correct, Fontaine is excited about possibly seeing traces of late stages engulfed planets: http://www.exopla...?lang=en .Not exactly touching the early and main stages of fusion controlled star evolution, but how systems transform to white dwarf systems.

As technology improves scientists are finding out how little they know..
lots of supposition and conjecture.

No, it is the opposite: by testing knowledge we find out that the methods work, the extent of what is assumed, how robust the results are and how much we already know. Consider that they found just twice as much oxygen as expected, and that some or all of the difference could have been external to fusion controlled star evolution.

Millions of scientists have worked hard for 5 centuries on laboriously achieving knowledge, for the first time in human history. Do you really think they would have done that without some modicum of success?

mackita sounds good. On utube Dr Albers says 'sun cores' are feeding on the sun. Maybe, I have seen theories that our Sol is the result of a planetary nova. I think something like that produced the inner planets.

Many questions left unasked and unanswered. What are the limits of each fluctuation? Did the core appear twice as large b/c of a fluctuation? What other characteristics did they get data on? I realize this is just a summary and for complete info we have to read the article/paper itself. But we should get a little more here to even decide if we want to see the full record.

These are interesting observations --there's no denying that.

One can accept, reject, or remain neutral with total impunity at this point, since we are only speaking conjecturally about what mechanism produced these reputedly anomalous conditions.

Like it or not, we'll have to wait for this methodology to be examined and for further observational confirmation by other researchers --aka-- replication of results, before a ruling can be made.

Having said that, it should be obvious to anyone that the stellar environment has a role to play in the evolution of a star, throughout its evolution. Still, it is rather surprising that so much of the star's mass is composed of these light elements following a nova, as sweeping up planetary material to augment the remaining carbon and oxygen to such an extent seems a little far-fetched.

Maybe what they've found is actually one of @Tuxford's matter-emmitting core stars.

contd

contd

In case any of you didn't detect it --the part about the "matter-emitting core star" was pure sarcasm.

I am interested in hearing what Giammichelle's peers have to say regarding the validity of her newly devised analytical method, which must be verified before the debate can legitimately go forward.

If it is found to be valid, however, then it will make it possible to verify many things about the nature and composition of white dwarfs. It seems likely that considerable variability would be the rule, but also likely that the variability will fall into pretty narrow deviations, so it still remains to be seen if this particular star would qualify as an actual anomaly.

As for the "anomaly" itself, how far back in time would we have to go to reconstruct all of the relevant environmental factors that may have been present to lead to its present condition?

It certainly would have been helpful if the writer of this article had provided the Numbers in question.

No sure this actually addresses the issue of how many possibilities exists for charge within a large mass( large set of charges, and possibilities of states from the center to the outside boundaries). One may surmise the existence of anti-matter and matter, which always settles or explode; however, often with recurring like events. So the cooling of a star is more likely due to such events. The other events, not containing different orbiters, anti-matter, define a very large set of things. Like massive currents, or currents that dance. Note: the charges near the surface and the boundary conditions under the above and without the above. Without any instability, expect impacts of near charges, scattering charges and reflected charges and the reflected fields. With any of the above constraints, these events may or may not be separable. So I really do not think we know anything about the reality of any star!

See https://drive.goo...XPRU3FG, if any argument, please state your Logic; especially, any verifiable axiom. Please don't say a constant speed of light. That's not true. In fact the speed of the field update is relative. One could try a 2 point measurement; however, you need the original speed relative the containing object. Note: that light is simply the sinusoidal field update due to charge motion. That charge may move in a circle, an ellipsoid, or any path that will define that field. So the charge's motion then 2*Pi*r/T = c? Nonsense! So we don't actually know how fast this wavelet moves unless we try c*Lambda_Emitted/Lambda_Observed.

Finally, at this distance, the origin of the light is questionable, i.e light that might have traveled through our local galaxy cluster is therefore corrupted. I leave the math to the astronomers and astrophysicist to define first what do we see? Don't give me that space is expanding nonsense. Obliviously we are within stream of galaxies, don't fight the local forces hold galaxies together. This isn't even that hard to verify. Expanding, looking for a freaking constant cause your theory is wrong, nonsense. A force cause these galaxies to move. Therefore due the acceleration as a function of distance to the actual direction these objects are moving. You need 3 vectors over time per object and they may be + or -!

But the stellar evolution theory was settled science.

If there was anything like settled science we wouldn't be doing science.

There's still a lot to learn - that's the fun part.

But the stellar evolution theory was settled science.

If there was anything like settled science we wouldn't be doing science.

There's still a lot to learn - that's the fun part.

Theoretical physics has been my hobby since I was 11. Since I'm Black, I wish we had the real interpretations of the Ancient Hieroglyphics. I think there was something there we really need to honor. First civilization not in our history because they were Black, wow! Yes we have a lot to learn. oops https://drive.goo...nXPRU3FG

From 200 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, many White dwarfs (60 White dwarfs) have been found! A Very Relevant Number To Cast The Author: "White Dwarfs" are the core remnants of nearly 97% of the stars in the Universe,
Where this knowledge is being studied, that I enroll?