EF Eridanus

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />Can someone explain what this CNN article is talking about, and what (if any) implications it has for the MM.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is routine for very close binary stars (called "contact binaries") to experience mass flow from the less massive to the more massive star. What is new in this case is that the less massive star has been so robbed of its original mass that nuclear fission, the process that makes a star radiate, may have switched off. This effectively leaves behind a non-radiating star, and suggests that similar stars may be more common than suspected.

There are no clear Meta Model implications because the stellar evolution implications have not yet been worked out, even for mainstream models. But MM does indicate that stars may have significant gravitational shielding in their interiors, which keeps them cooler and more stable than they would otherwise be.

In fact it is possible that MM allows stars of 0.05 solar masses (as for the EF Eridani companion) to turn off, while the mainstream (Eddington) model might have a problem with this. But it will take a while for the needed calculations to be finished. -|Tom|-

Now that the Lesser star has stopped radiateing mass, will it now begin to accumulate mass perhaps reigniting? Or, will its orbit radius increase as it falls to a "lower energy level" at a greater distance from the Larger Star.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Now that the Lesser star has stopped radiating mass, will it now begin to accumulate mass perhaps reigniting? Or, will its orbit radius increase as it falls to a "lower energy level" at a greater distance from the Larger Star.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I see no particular reason why its present status could not be stable indefinitely. In any case, we are unaware of the local circumstances, such as leftover mass to re-accrete, or perhaps tidal forces acting, that could tell us what might happen next. -|Tom|-