Weird star spotted. Any thoughts?

My company just developed new telescope technology, found something odd during testing... Goes against physics a bit. So our new telescope we acquired is sort of like a CRT in how it functions, focusing and accelerating wavicle using fields. I cant get into specifics on how it works, proprietary stuff. Anywho, scanning the deep fields we seen a small star, very small star. Roughly 6x10^24kg... I know, right. Weirder, its spectrals spike in Sodium, then nitrogen, then hydrogen, then oxygen, then carbon. It's obviously to small to be a normal star, and I'm not a cosmetologist but I don't think stars are made of salt either. It's part of a binary star system with a standard red giant. Any thoughts?

edit: really english grammar nazis?

Yeah right. You've made a field-busting breakthrough discovery with your cutting edge equipment and instead of writing it up and getting your fifth PhD you've come on ATS for internet points.

Warvicles, yeah, that sounds sciency.

a reply to: savvo

I did not make it. a coworker and I were transporting it and decided to flip it on. Im not thinking its anything other than a glitchy spectrograph. A comrade of mine suggested ATS as it's fairly below radar. Pretty cool stuff, but I was asking about the star.

Think he meant "wavicle". Doesn't do much to make one think he's "lergit".

a reply to: w121x080y120z850


Proper spelling and grammar would help sell the farce. Maybe next time?

a reply to: chadderson

I'm always amused by folks who are distracted by difference in language to the point that they ignore the point. I'm not asking for english grammar nazis, and I made nothing. I just take photos and move things. Any thoughts on the star or is it bad spectrograph?

a reply to: w121x080y120z850

It would help if we a picture or link to phenomena in question. As for the "grammar Nazi" stuff, impressions count, and on an online forum, for good or ill, spelling and grammar say quite a bit.

a reply to: savvo

Haha. I just noticed something using equipment I'm not supposed to be playing with. I only have an associate, not PhD. I'm not writing up anythings that's most likely glitchy equipment. On the cutting edge, you might bleed a bit.

originally posted by: w121x080y120z850
a reply to: chadderson

I'm always amused by folks who are distracted by difference in language to the point that they ignore the point. I'm not asking for english grammar nazis, and I made nothing. I just take photos and move things. Any thoughts on the star or is it bad spectrograph?

That would be 'English', not english. Personally I don't grant nazi a capital letter because I refuse to dignify them with it, but it is a proper noun so take your pick.

Sodium is a metal, and is found in stars.

www.astronomy.com...

Sounds like you found a death star.
Nasty little buggars

Considering they found a crystallized carbon white dwarf containing a diamond 2,500 miles across weighing 5 million trillion trillion pounds anything seems possible.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Sodium is a metal, and is found in stars.

www.astronomy.com...

My mistake. I've stated that I'm no PhD, but is the size of the star out of the realm of possible?

a reply to: w121x080y120z850

Cosmetology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Actually, I do suspect that the star may be an artifact of the imaging system but I have little to go on, in that regard.

I would imagine that this telescope uses some sort of quantum effect to capture photons and make determination about the nature of the photon/s beyond just path of travel and abundances?

I'd like to know more about the tech than the star, actually.

originally posted by: w121x080y120z850

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Sodium is a metal, and is found in stars.

www.astronomy.com...

My mistake. I've stated that I'm no PhD, but is the size of the star out of the realm of possible?

Hertzsprung–Russell diagram From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How are you determining mass?

originally posted by: w121x080y120z850

edit: really english grammar nazis?

Forget grammar nazis.

Where's your proof or evidence?

originally posted by: w121x080y120z850
a reply to: savvo

Haha. I just noticed something using equipment I'm not supposed to be playing with. I only have an associate, not PhD. I'm not writing up anythings that's most likely glitchy equipment. On the cutting edge, you might bleed a bit.

The key here is "equipment i'm not supposed to be playing with." You don't know what you are doing. Put the damn thing down before you get your butt fired. And no, we know you're not a cosmetologist.

a reply to: chr0naut

It shows up on the computer. I believe it used a reference to a near by star and its speed. It is orbiting a red dwarf.

a reply to: chr0naut

It's basically heavy charges rings which expand and contract at a microscopic level in conjunction with magnets. To me it looks like a CRT schematic, but cooler.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: w121x080y120z850
a reply to: savvo

Haha. I just noticed something using equipment I'm not supposed to be playing with. I only have an associate, not PhD. I'm not writing up anythings that's most likely glitchy equipment. On the cutting edge, you might bleed a bit.

The key here is "equipment i'm not supposed to be playing with." You don't know what you are doing. Put the damn thing down before you get your butt fired. And no, we know you're not a cosmetologist.

Or get hurt running with hair-cutting shears (considering they are not a cosmetologist)


To Add:
Our own sun's spectral anaylsis would show sodium, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon (among other elements).

If it is a binary, you might get a doppler shift in the spectrum if we are viewing the stars from a "side view" as they orbit each other. One of the stars might appear to be moving away from us and the other may appear to be moving toward us as they orbit each other, creating the doppler shift.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: w121x080y120z850
a reply to: savvo

Haha. I just noticed something using equipment I'm not supposed to be playing with. I only have an associate, not PhD. I'm not writing up anythings that's most likely glitchy equipment. On the cutting edge, you might bleed a bit.

The key here is "equipment i'm not supposed to be playing with." You don't know what you are doing. Put the damn thing down before you get your butt fired. And no, we know you're not a cosmetologist.

Bold to assume OP is telling the truth.