It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ESO Findings Falsify Standard Model Of Stars

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The cepheid mass discrepancy problem has no solution in the standard model of stars. Recent findings by the ESO confirm that the standard model of stellar evolution is wrong, thereby calling the use of cepheids as standard candles into question.

ESO press release reports:


Cepheids are not fully understood. Predictions of their masses derived from the theory of pulsating stars are 20–30% less than predictions from the theory of the evolution of stars. This embarrassing discrepancy has been known since the 1960s.
...
The observers carefully measured the brightness variations of this rare object, known as OGLE-LMC-CEP0227 [4], as the two stars orbited and passed in front of one another. They also used HARPS and other spectrographs to measure the motions of the stars towards and away from the Earth — both the orbital motion of both stars and the in-and-out motion of the surface of the Cepheid as it swelled and contracted.

This very complete and detailed data allowed the observers to determine the orbital motion, sizes and masses of the two stars with very high accuracy — far surpassing what had been done before for a Cepheid. The mass of the Cepheid is now known to about 1% and agrees exactly with predictions from the theory of stellar pulsation. However, the larger mass predicted by stellar evolution theory was shown to be significantly in error.


Astronomer Mel Acheson comments:

That the result confirms the stellar pulsation theory necessitates that it falsifies the stellar evolution theory. If astronomers were philosophically honest, they would declare the theory nullified in accordance with Karl Popper’s 1959 proposal of falsification as a criterion to distinguish a scientific theory from a pseudoscientific one. Falsification was to be a “convention” that required scientists to agree not to adjust a theory to accommodate test results but, when falsified, to start over with searches for alternative theories. Falsification is not a property of a theory that justifies acquiescence in orthodoxy but a convention that enables opportunities for discovery of new theories and the overthrow of conceptual monopolies.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The cepheid mass discrepancy problem has no solution in the standard model of stars. Recent findings by the ESO confirm that the standard model of stellar evolution is wrong, thereby calling the use of cepheids as standard candles into question.

ESO press release reports:


Cepheids are not fully understood. Predictions of their masses derived from the theory of pulsating stars are 20–30% less than predictions from the theory of the evolution of stars. This embarrassing discrepancy has been known since the 1960s.
...
The observers carefully measured the brightness variations of this rare object, known as OGLE-LMC-CEP0227 [4], as the two stars orbited and passed in front of one another. They also used HARPS and other spectrographs to measure the motions of the stars towards and away from the Earth — both the orbital motion of both stars and the in-and-out motion of the surface of the Cepheid as it swelled and contracted.

This very complete and detailed data allowed the observers to determine the orbital motion, sizes and masses of the two stars with very high accuracy — far surpassing what had been done before for a Cepheid. The mass of the Cepheid is now known to about 1% and agrees exactly with predictions from the theory of stellar pulsation. However, the larger mass predicted by stellar evolution theory was shown to be significantly in error.


Astronomer Mel Acheson comments:

That the result confirms the stellar pulsation theory necessitates that it falsifies the stellar evolution theory. If astronomers were philosophically honest, they would declare the theory nullified in accordance with Karl Popper’s 1959 proposal of falsification as a criterion to distinguish a scientific theory from a pseudoscientific one. Falsification was to be a “convention” that required scientists to agree not to adjust a theory to accommodate test results but, when falsified, to start over with searches for alternative theories. Falsification is not a property of a theory that justifies acquiescence in orthodoxy but a convention that enables opportunities for discovery of new theories and the overthrow of conceptual monopolies.









hmm, got to read this..

I know there is something wrong with the current model, but haven't been able to grasp it fully. I had a theory some years back, similar to your findings on the red shift (cannot be just due to starts moving etc.).. but haven't yet had anything substantial with which I could convince easily those around me about these things..

Thanks for the link, got to look into it, if this would open up something for me..



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jussi
 


Here's a few models of stars that actually make sense and comply with the known laws of physics, unlike the standard model of stars which has just been blatantly falsified.

sites.google.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
My first observation is that the ESO findings don't falsify the standard model of stars as your title suggests. They confirm a 15-30% discrepancy in the standard model of stellar evolution's prediction of the mass of an extremely rare and unusual type of star. So unusual that in fact none has even been observed in the Milky way at an orientation that permitted this new observation:

www.nature.com...

In spite of many observational efforts, no firm detection of a classical Cepheid in an eclipsing double-lined binary has hitherto been reported. Here we report the discovery of a classical Cepheid in a well detached, double-lined eclipsing binary in the Large Magellanic Cloud. We determine the mass to a precision of 1% and show that it agrees with its pulsation mass, providing strong evidence that pulsation theory correctly and precisely predicts the masses of classical Cepheids.
Indeed the authors report that this is a discovery of "a classical Cepheid in an eclipsing double-lined binary" where "no firm detection"... "has hitherto been reported".

So I don't think this study on a very rare and unusual type of binary star which has only just been discovered at this viewing angle falsifies the standard model of stellar evolution for all types of stars, it only confirms there is a 15-30% discrepancy for this very rare type of star. And as you said we've known about this particular discrepancy since the 1960s:


Originally posted by mnemeth1
ESO press release reports:

Cepheids are not fully understood. Predictions of their masses derived from the theory of pulsating stars are 20–30% less than predictions from the theory of the evolution of stars. This embarrassing discrepancy has been known since the 1960s.
So this is nothing new.

We had two competing theories for the mass that differed by about 20%, we already knew they couldn't both be right, so now we know which of the two theories was right:


The mass of the Cepheid is now known to about 1% and agrees exactly with predictions from the theory of stellar pulsation. However, the larger mass predicted by stellar evolution theory was shown to be significantly in error.
Other titles about this story differ significantly from your title:
Pulsating star mystery solved
Cepheid Pulsation Theory Confirmed!
Pulsating Star Mystery Solved in Rare Alignment of Cepheid Variable and Another Star

Unfortunately given how unusual and rare this type of star is, there just aren't that many to observe, and ZERO at the proper angle in our own galaxy. So the difficulty of observing them may help maintain the mystery about why the model of stellar evolution is off by 20% or so for this unusual star type.

However the authors of the paper don't suggest that the model of stellar evolution is wrong for any other type of star, which includes almost all stars in the Milky Way galaxy for example.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So please explain how the standard model accounts for the mass discrepancy if it is not wrong.

Of course, you can't, because it can't, because it is wrong.

The standard model of star formation is a total joke.

If the standard model was right, then there would be no mass discrepancy. It would have predicted the mass correctly the first time. So don't sit there and lie to my face like I'm some kind of an idiot.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
While we are at it, lets look at the hypotheticals between models:

Standard Model:

-invokes magnetic reconnection and frozen in magnetic fields, which violate the known laws of physics
-invokes a solar dynamo to produce magnetic fields
-invokes a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction model that has never been verified to actually work from start to finish
-invokes a hypothetical convection zone that is untestable
-lacks a mechanism that can account for the total heat produced in the corona

Electric Model:

-Electrons flow into the Sun in a Brownian flow



hmmmmmmm yet the EU model is totally insane and irrational?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I out of some kind of impulsive habit tend to resist a dissenting revelation about the science we tend to adhere to in repeatable laboratory experiments that I stumble upon some internet chat board. It might be just me.

BTW, the Bomb works, fact.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So please explain how the standard model accounts for the mass discrepancy if it is not wrong.

Of course, you can't, because it can't, because it is wrong.

The standard model of star formation is a total joke.

If the standard model was right, then there would be no mass discrepancy. It would have predicted the mass correctly the first time. So don't sit there and lie to my face like I'm some kind of an idiot.


The standard model doesn't account for the mass discrepancy. But, it does account for the formation of every other kind of star, to the best of our knowledge. It's just that, in this one (and very rare) case, the standard model presents a discrepancy. That doesn't mean we throw out the entire model - it just necessitates a modification of the formation of Cepheid variables.

And I believe that's what Arbitrageur was saying. Why does a discrepancy in one rare (and, therefore, ambiguous) case mean we have to throw out a theory that works in all other cases?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


No, actually it doesn't.

It can't even fully describe our own Sun without postulating all manner of insanity.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

So please explain how the standard model accounts for the mass discrepancy if it is not wrong
I re-read my post and it says exactly what I intended to say. Perhaps you didn't comprehend it?

Just because it's wrong for a rare type of unusual star doesn't mean it's wrong for all stars.

My first guess would be that because this type of star is so rare and unusual, we don't understand this particular type of star, the Cepheid variable, well enough to model it accurately with the standard model of stellar evolution. That doesn't necessarily mean we don't understand more typical stars better.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by CLPrime
 


No, actually it doesn't.

It can't even fully describe our own Sun without postulating all manner of insanity.



If you don't mind, what's the "all manner of insanity" that the Standard Solar Model has to postulate with regards to our sun?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by CLPrime
 


No, actually it doesn't.

It can't even fully describe our own Sun without postulating all manner of insanity.



If you don't mind, what's the "all manner of insanity" that the Standard Solar Model has to postulate with regards to our sun?


The model has no explanation for why the solar corona is as hot as it is.

Further, the model requires magnetic reconnection to explain solar flares, a theory that blatantly violates the laws of physics.

Further, the model has no explanation at all for why there are solar cycles.

This is on top of the hypotheticals I listed above.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The model is a POS.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by CLPrime
 


No, actually it doesn't.

It can't even fully describe our own Sun without postulating all manner of insanity.



If you don't mind, what's the "all manner of insanity" that the Standard Solar Model has to postulate with regards to our sun?


The model has no explanation for why the solar corona is as hot as it is.

Further, the model requires magnetic reconnection to explain solar flares, a theory that blatantly violates the laws of physics.

Further, the model has no explanation at all for why there are solar cycles.

This is on top of the hypotheticals I listed above.


Before I go on, I want to say, I am playing the devil's advocate. I don't necessarily disagree that the Standard Model is wrong, but there needs to be good evidence for it, and a discrepancy in the mass of one rare form of star is not nearly enough. The success of the theory in explaining stellar formation speaks volumes...the theory has a lot of merit, even if it can't yet explain the details.

Coronal overheating doesn't necessitate throwing out the Standard Theory. It could just mean that there's something we're missing, as with solar cycles. Just because a basic model doesn't predict something doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong. In fact, it doesn't mean the theory is wrong at all. These might be a result of unrelated processes.
Also, I'm not going to argue with a plasma cosmologist about plasma cosmology - an area that I know very little about. Cosmology, yes. Plasma cosmology, unfortunately, no.

Thank you, at least, for having an answer to my question. Usually, when people are so violent with their beliefs, they have little to nothing to back themselves up.
edit on 1-3-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



If you think science necessarily must rely on falsification to prove or disprove its theories as Karl Popper presented, then clearly the Standard Model has been falsified.

It only takes one falsifying observation to disprove a model.

As for being "violent" in my beliefs, I am not the one that supports a failed theory which is being propped up with tax dollars. Taxes necessarily require violence.

In fact the only reason I give a s**** what the standard theory nut jobs think is because THEY ARE LOOTING ME AT GUN POINT TO PAY THEIR SALARIES.

AT THE VERY LEAST THEY NEED TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH WITH MY STOLEN MONEY.

edit on 1-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The Standard Model has not been falsified. It remains as a possible explanation, albeit potentially with some tweaking if it turns out the coronal overheating and such require tweaking of the theory. But, on their own, they don't require a new theory.

True, it does take only one falsifying observation to disprove a model. In the case of the Standard Model of stellar formation, that falsifying observation has yet to be found.

Supporting a "failed theory" does not constitute violent. Also, I am not supporting the Standard Model. I am, however, defending its stance as one theory among several that could explain star formation. Maybe more than one theory, including the Standard Model, is right. Maybe the Standard Model is wrong. Regardless, nothing has eliminated the Model...yet.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Yes, yes it has been falsified.

That is what the report clearly shows us.

If you say it has not been falsified, then you are lying to yourself.

I say "lying to yourself" because anyone with half a brain that can read will clearly see you are wrong.


edit on 1-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Yes, yes it has been falsified.

That is what the report clearly shows us.

If you say it has not been falsified, then you are lying to yourself.

I say "lying to yourself" because anyone with half a brain that can read will clearly see you are wrong.


edit on 1-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


One rare form of star fails to conform to the Standard Model's expectations. That is not a falsification. That is a nail in the coffin, but it does not falsify the entire theory...just the expected formation of Cepheid variables.

Also, I try very hard not to lie to myself. There are too many other people doing that for me.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Apparently you are unfamiliar with the standard theory.

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't tell me I am wrong.


edit on 1-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
It was Einstein who said

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

And I think this is exactly the kind of situation which this should apply.(In the standard models favor of course.)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join