> ? I rebutted every point you made, your following
> reaction was nonsensical.
No you did not you liar.
White dwarves are not the same size as regular stars. You accepted the temperature of ~ 25 000 K. Therefore a star of regular size, at that temperature, would be extremely luminous. It would easily be the brightest star in the sky. Go back to school and learn about the temperature-luminosity relationship;
Stars do not form in a z-pinch, and not a single scientist believes such idiocy. And the examples you gave in the illegally uncredited images do not conform to a z-pinch, as any fool can see if they understand anything about Doppler shifts and read a few papers;
M2-9: A PLANETARY NEBULA WITH AN ERUPTIVE NUCLEUS? (1989)
For the hard of thinking, Fig. 2 is the money shot.
You claimed the 25 000 K is an electron temperature, which is an excessively stupid thing to claim. It is an effective temperature;
Hubble Space Telescope spectroscopy of the Balmer lines in Sirius B (2005)
Barstow, M. A. et al.
And an electron temperature of 25 000 K, if it were such (which it isn't), is very low. The solar wind electron temperature is ~ 4 x that at 1 AU;
You also falsely claimed that the mainstream has white dwarves forming from nova explosions. That is tripe;
If the mass of a main-sequence star is between 0.5 and 8 M☉ like our sun, its core will become sufficiently hot to fuse helium into carbon and oxygen via the triple-alpha process, but it will never become sufficiently hot to fuse carbon into neon. Near the end of the period in which it undergoes fusion reactions, such a star will have a carbon–oxygen core which does not undergo fusion reactions, surrounded by an inner helium-burning shell and an outer hydrogen-burning shell. On the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, it will be found on the asymptotic giant branch. It will then expel most of its outer material, creating a planetary nebula, until only the carbon–oxygen core is left. This process is responsible for the carbon–oxygen white dwarfs which form the vast majority of observed white dwarfs.
So, in summary;
you wrote a bunch of scientifically illiterate, and inaccurate, garbage which has been totally debunked, and you have rebutted none of it.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06-Apr-19 20:45 by ianw16.