> I have mass same in my paper in the table, not
> sure what your point is here?
> I am pretty sure you have not read my paper...
> If you could give some genuine critique that would
> be great...
You haven't got a paper. Just a bunch of nonsense on vixra. For instance you say, with no justification or reference to science;
White dwarf stars are just as large as other stars and also follow evolutionary paths as per Stellar Metamorphosis.
Which is quite obviously bollocks. As is;
Stars are born in stellar pinches (Bennet-pinch or Birkeland current pinch or z-pinch etc), in astronomy this is not widely known nor accepted,......
No, it isn't accepted because it too is bollocks. There is no such model within the scientific literature. It is the crazed delusion of a handful of electric universe nutjobs.
You then say;
Stellar pinches are (when the plasma of the current filament is fully visible) shaped like an hourglass, see the first picture in the above image,...
Which is also.......... well, you get the picture. That is referencing the M-2 Butterfly Nebula (and I hope that image, and all the others, are in the public domain, because they are uncredited) and the Doppler data shows the lobes to be going in different directions, emanating from the central star. Z-pinches don't do that. The non-existent current would be flowing in one direction, and therefore our Doppler observations would show the lobes to be both going in the same direction. They aren't. References available.
You also reference the fact that Sirius B is brighter in x-ray. This is due to the temperature of ~ 25 000 K producing low energy x-rays. Were it to be the same size as Sirius A, it would well and truly outshine it in visible light. It doesn't.
You further state;
This is an electron temperature,this means Sirius B is very electrically active...........
No, it is not. It is an effective temperature. And if it were an electron temperature, then it is very low. Electrons in the solar wind are far 'hotter' than that. Around 105 K, iirc.
Because in standard astronomy the central objects are said to be white dwarf stars, but in standard astronomy these are also nova explsosions and thus deaths of stars;
No, they are not nova explosions. They are red giants that can no longer support fusion in the core. They then blow away the outer layers to form planetary nebulae, and what remains is a dense core of electron-degenerate matter.
In summary; I can see why you would not want this anywhere near a respectable, peer-reviewed journal! It is complete nonsense from start to finish, and showcases an alarming lack of knowledge of the subject area. Beats me why you bother.
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 04-Apr-19 22:05 by ianw16.