> D-Archer Wrote:
> > 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
> > be great...
> > Regards,
> > Daniel
> 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.
Are you really this dense? That is my supposition, you may call it an assumption, the rest of the paper provides evidence that points to this idea, i also make no final conclusion in the end about this, this was an exploratory paper, i did want to let people know that white dwarf stars do not have to be Earth Sized.. there are other possibilities and i posited one.
> 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.
So how are stars born according to mainstream astronomy? And do they have observational evidence?
The pinch is actually observed and you can see the star in the center. Also there is observational evidence of stars born along plasma filaments, like beads on a string, the point where the star is born is the pinch. We may even one day be able to do a lab experiment for this, i am working to protoype such an experiment, i think i will make a future paper on it.
> 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
> 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.
I thought you knew something about plasma physics? Clearly not, at least you have no idea how a z-pinch works it seems.
The lobes are the pinched current filament, the matter is drawn in (pinched) mechancially from surrounding dust perpendicular to the current filament.. in this picture it is more clear, you can see the dust in the center>
butterfly nebula > [www.spacetelescope.org]
You can trace the dust as a curved swirl even.
> 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.
But it is not the same size as Sirius A... and it does not outshine Sirius A in visble light.Not sure what your point here is.
> You further state;
This is an electron temperature,this means
> Sirius B is very electrically
> 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,
All stars are electrically active, but Sirius B is more active (that is why i said 'very'), this is because it probably receives the same amount of charge as Sirius A, but because it is smaller it shows higher electrical activity, this is what produces x-ray. You can not have x-ray without higher electrical activity. I used the phrase 'electron temperature' for casual readers just to point to the mechanims of x-ray production. There is more to it technically and it is interesting for anyone to look into.
> More nonsense;
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.
That is what i said, they are not nova explosions, i listed a bunch of things that are all the same thing, stellar birth objects, this is a major simplification, ockhams razor and all.
The rest you say is just a believe, there is 0 evidence red stars blow anything away and become even hotter shining stars..those ideas are fiction based on a host of assumptions. Also 'red giants' probably do not exist, red stars are cooler and smaller in Stellar Metamorphosis than our sun. If you see something bigger and red it is probably not a star.
> 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
It is written for everyone interested in astronomy, science and above all natural philosophy.
I do not write for "scientists" that do peer review, if you are such a "scientist" it shows you do not even know how a z-pinch works.. that is alarming.
For reference you might first want to study the can pincher, that is about your level, i hope you can understand it. An electrical course might do wonders, i recommend the MIT Banana guy lectures.