Is the process of fusion really enough to keep stars from imploding?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter david findley
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fusion Process Stars
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the adequacy of fusion processes in preventing stars from collapsing under their own gravity. Participants explore the theoretical and mathematical foundations of stellar fusion, as well as alternative hypotheses regarding additional forces that may contribute to stellar stability.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether fusion alone is sufficient to prevent stellar implosion, suggesting the possibility of other contributing factors.
  • Another participant emphasizes that observations align well with mathematical models, indicating a level of confidence in the current understanding of fusion in stars.
  • A request is made for mathematical proof of fusion's effectiveness in maintaining stellar structure, highlighting a desire for empirical validation.
  • One participant proposes a theory involving a hypothetical substance with anti-gravity properties that could assist in keeping stars inflated until they reach critical mass.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of new theories without a solid understanding of existing scientific frameworks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the sufficiency of fusion for stellar stability, with some advocating for the established understanding while others propose alternative theories. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the necessity of additional factors.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the completeness of current models and the potential for undiscovered factors influencing stellar behavior. There is a noted lack of empirical evidence for the proposed anti-gravity substance.

david findley
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Hi,

has it really been proven that the process of fusion is REALLY enough to keep stars from imploding under their own gravitational force?

I suspect that there might possibly be another factor involved, in keeping the stars inflated until they start to cool and hit that point of critical-mass--
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Define "proven"? The observations match our mathematical models pretty well. So that's about all we can do.
 
well, I would like to see a paper, or something, anything, that really proves (mathematically is fine,) that the process of fusion is really enough to keep the star from imploding.
...The explosive force of fusion must also be documented in its strength independent of the example of the star, as well... so the force of the process is verified as the same in both instances.

(I am wary of something like: the star requires X amount of explosive power to stay inflated , and so fusion must provide X amount of explosive force. )I mean if that is not too much to ask...
 
I'm not sure what you would like to see exactly since all of the math happens inside a computer, but here is a description of how it works: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/starmodls.html

Also, I think you probably have the chicken and egg backwards: scientists know about fusion based on "doing" fusion on earth. Then they apply that to stars. It isn't a guessing game or circular logic.
 
thank you so much for directing me to that..
to avoid beting around the bush, I have this idea that a certain something in stars (nto telling you what muwahahah [...]) might exhibit anti-gravity properties, that would be conducive to a stars' inflation, until it begins to cool down and hit its critical-mass (if it is to become a black-hole.)

This anti-gravity effect would be small, but still yet measurable. If the fusion alone has not been proven to be fully sufficient to keep the star inflated, then perhaps that would be indicative of a second factor, which involved my theory of this particular substance having anti-gravity properties.

but... if the force of fusion has been calculated (I suppose it is done at the big x-ray machine in new mexico,) and all the numbers are accounted for..

then there is not much room left for my theory..

thank you again, 'russ watters'
 
You're putting the cart before the horse there -- before even understanding what the existing theories say and how they work, you have a vague idea that they might be wrong. That is an extremely anti-science stance that we do not support here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K