Talk:Stellar nucleosynthesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] To-do list
Just to remember some of the missing bits:
- agreement with observation
- elements aboundance
- luminosity of star
- what's up with very small and very massive stars
- solar neutrino & solar neutrino problem
- link to stellar evolution
- ref to Helium flash
- Supernova nucleosynthesis (TODO)
- Big bang nucleosynthesis (too expand, lot to say!)
- Nucleosynthesis (stubby, to expand)
- should be better to merge most of this: easy to make comparison/odd Z/double odd Z/magic number/...
- CN cycle in CNO cycle
- Carbon burning process, Oxygen burning process, Silicon burning process are just drafts
- -- Looxix 01:25 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] examples of observations that falsify stellar fusion models
FG Sagittae - variable star brightened four magnitudes while COOLING and shifting from UV to visible light, then dropped SEVEN magnitudes in less than a hundred years, it's moved all the way across "HR diagram", and now it's a binary pair - impossible to explain by common belief systems involving stars radiating heat from nucleosynthesis, exactly what electric models would predict as a star is subjected to violent change in current density; fission of the star and as a result lower current density on the surface of the (now) two bodies
other variable stars defying faith-based stellar fusion beliefs: V 605 Aquilae (similar to above), V 4334 Sagittarii (changed both spectral type and observed composition in years), V838 Monocerotis (changed from an apparently small star hotter than the sun to a cooler "giant" star in a matter of months, defying ANY explanation by stellar fusion models)
If stellar fusion models were valid these types of changes might have an outside chance of taking place in a few thousand years, but typically it would be on the order of a few HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. How much evidence is required to falsify a hypothesis? Here's a clue: any
This stellar fusion article should be labelled pseudoscience, because observations falsify it, yet it persists as a belief system. Either pseudoscience or religion, either would be okay.
