This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
9-6-11 eso1132b

Freakish Star Stuns Astronomers

Posted on

Astronomers have detected a star that should not exist.  Current theory cannot explain the composition of a star in the constellation Leo.  This “freakish star,” moreover, is probably not unique.  What is it, exactly, that modern star formation theory does explain?

Science Daily reported the reactions by astronomers to this star, named SDSS J102915+172927, found with the Very Large Telescope in Chile. They called the star “primitive” because it has very low abundance of metals – that is (to astronomers) any elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and lithium (the initial elements thought to be formed after the big bang)  The strong spectral line of calcium was detected, but they had to look long and hard to find others. posted a video with freakish music to match, showing the star’s location in Leo, headlining, “Star That Should Never Have Existed, Exists.” At New Scientist, Lisa Grossman tried to describe the surprise of finding this star:

Imagine you’re an archaeologist. You find what looks like the skeleton of a protohuman. One hand seems to be grasping an object – could it be a clue to how these early beings lived? You scrape off the mud only to find that the object resembles a cellphone.

Your sense of shock is akin to how Lorenzo Monaco of the European Southern Observatory in Chile and colleagues must have felt when they examined the elemental composition of an oddball star, prosaically named SDSS J102915+172927.

Two major difficulties arise from this star.  Elisabeth Caffau (University of Heidelberg, University of Paris) explained the first: “A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn’t exist because the clouds of material from which they formed could never have condensed.”  New Scientist said this star has 4.5 millionths the heavy elements found in our sun….

Continue Reading on


This entry was posted in Astronomy, Cosmology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Joe Martin

    Never a dull moment on this website. The author seems to be crowing about astronomers wailing and gnashing their teeth over the discovery of a star that throws a wrench into the theory that explains star formation.

    Unlike close minded religionists, scientists don’t start with a conclusion and selectively look only for facts that verify that conclusion. They make observations and come up with theories that explain the most likely cause of what they observe.

    There’s a reason a scientific theory is called a theory. The theory that explains how stars are formed is not the same thing as the fact that stars ARE formed. The stars would have formed regardless of whether humanity ever came up with a theory to describe it.

    If you read the actual literature on the issue of this star, you’d understand that astronomers are fairly ecstatic about the discovery. It will bring them that much closer to understanding the actual process. That’s the beauty of the scientific method.

    Contrast this elation with the reaction of religionists when inconvenient facts contradict what they want to believe. LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I can’t HEAR you!

    • http://msn Mark

      Joe Martin says”:

      “Unlike close minded religionists, scientists don’t start with a conclusion and selectively look only for facts that verify that conclusion. They make observations and come up with theories that explain the most likely cause of what they observe.”

      Unless you confess that any current proponent of evolution theory is incompetent or delusional, you have “no” credibility.

      Your inane rhetoric reveals a strong subjective tone, but maybe I’m wrong ?.

  • Dennis

    All this does is show just how stupid, so called scientists, really are.Half of what is supposedly known is nothing more than guess work,conjection or theory.This is no shocker to me at all.

    • Joe Martin

      Whereas the existence of an afterlife full of fluffy bunnies and candy rainbows has been overwhelmingly confirmed by observation and experimentation. Touche, sir, touche.

      • LW

        Fluffy bunnies and candy rainbows? Joe, what ARE you smoking? LOL you are funny!

    • Joe Martin

      By the way, Dennis, that’s “conjecture”

  • Ken

    The scientists have never explained where the stuff for the big bang came from.
    The Bible explains that God made everything
    ex nihilo. No one including scientists have come close to proving that God didn’t create everything. Some think that they are pretty cocky and smart by poking fun of people who are “religionists.” Some of the smartest mathematicians in history were Christians.
    The ones poking fun of Christ and his messaage are the ones Christ spoke of when he said that they have ears and hear but do not understand. The Bible says that all of creation points to the attributes of God, but that man in his foolishness worships himself and creation rather that God the creator. Why can’t scientists just admit that they are only scratching the surface of knowledge rather than clinging to theories that have zero probabilities of accuracy.
    The reason for the zero probability is that among an infinite number of explanations that are possible if one is chosen you have
    P= 1 / infinity. That is zero. An infinite number of curves can be drawn through 4 data points. The probability of selecting the correct one is 1 / infinity or zero.
    Science is useful but never provides truth.
    Even incorrect scientific theories are sometimes useful.

    • Joe Martin

      …and all this proselytizing is relevant to star formation theory because …

      //Why can’t scientists just admit that they are only scratching the surface of knowledge//

      Umm, Ken? KEN? This is is EXACTLY what they do. It’s the religionists who whimper submissively to their fear of scientific knowledge and claim that all we need to know/accept is that “goddidit”

      • ttasker


        as a Christian, I am thankful for all that scientists have brought to our attention with their research and technology.

        But, on a philosophical level “goddidit” is still a plausible theory, especially if data keeps intimating that it “fits”

        To say that one can only accept what one observes takes away what most scientists accept as “fact.

        for example; dark matter, magnetism, strong and weak forces in atoms. none of these things can be observed- we only accept them because we observe other things
        “under their influence” can not the same thing be said about a man who believes in God.


      • http://msn Mark

        Once again your ineptitude and hypocrisy allow you to make idiotic claims.
        Your blind trust of “scientist “, would make a branch davidian appear skeptical.
        This would lead a reasonable person to believe you are not honestly seeking truth, but pre-supposing an atheist world view.


    • http://Co James Curtis

      Well said Ken. Allow me please to tack this onto your statement concerning God and mans knowledge of Him. Man, with his finite mind, which finite mind, as powerful as it is and which knows only of those things it has experienced with the five senses given it by the Creator, could/would never have conceived of, in it’s most wild imaginings, of a Being which has existed for all eternity, (even if the existence of eternity itself could have entered man’s finite mind )and that that Being brought everything that exists, into existence with only the Power of His mind.
      We know of Him only because He revealed Himself to us , MAN DID NOT INVENT GOD ! God invented man.
      May my English teacher forgive my sentence structure.

    • Fed Up

      YIKES!! a gent with some common sense! thanks for sharing it!!

  • Larry803

    This is totally amazing. Once again we have one side of an issue squared off in opposition with another side on that issue and along comes proof that causes doubt on BOTH sides of that issue. What we find is that even with the PROOF of a fallacy both sides continue to argue their positions using the flawed supposition that the fallacy supports their beliefs.

    Let’s try this on for fit. The earth was created by the Grand Creator in 7 days. The same story that tells us this also says that the Creator’s time does not correspond to our time reference. How do we explain it? One side says the earth was created in 7 24 hour periods and ignores the possibility that the Creator’s time reference that a day may be many billions of years long. The other side claims that since it takes billions of years for the growth of the world proves that the 7 day theory is wrong and therefore no Creator exists. Where are the two sides going to meet and find that they may both be right and a Creator has used time periods of his own making to create the earth.

    Wow… everyone is right? OMG, no argument exists… and therein lies the basic problem, mankind would rather argue their myriad of possible truths than know THE TRUTH.

  • rnewtp

    Joe, If you try hard enough To prove GOD didn’t create all on Earth & the Heavens above you will then believe….

  • Leslie R. Pastor

    The Fibonacci Sequence (mathematics in nature) is demonstrated everywhere. A thirteen year old discovered that trees capture the most amount of light for their leaves using the Fibonacci Sequence. He noticed this, while trying to make the perfect solar cell system.

  • Joe Martin

    The way this comment section is set up, it seems impossible to maintain conversation threads, so I’ll start a new one here.

    @Mark, you’re very good at tossing generalities around. What ineptitude and hypocrisy are you referring to? What idiotic claims? The nature of science and the scientific method precludes having presuppositions about any scientifically observable phenomenon. It is religion that starts with the presupposition that “goddidit” and ignores, distorts or suppresses any facts that contradict the unalterable conclusion that “goddidit”

    I’m sure this will be ignored, but science holds no allegiance to atheism. If it can be scientifically determined that “godactuallydiddoit”, then that will be the accepted answer to whatever phenomena are explained by their related theories. Unlike religion, science will not blindly start with that assumption that “goddidit”, but will pay due attention to any credible evidence presented in support of that claim.

  • http://msn Mark

    How the hell deep is your rabbet hole ?
    Would you please explain your seemingly endless faith in scientists.
    You consider evolution theory good science ?
    Presupposing undirected natural cause, and over 150 years with-out any data to back it up . With the majority of “scientists” supporting this UN-scientific RAG of a theory, how can you remain undaunted in your naiveté’; willful ignorance , delusion ?
    This abomination would have been refuted by (honest) scientist’s years ago if the “scientific method” was used to determine its validity. Your precious science has become a integrity-less joke, and is now only slightly less vile than politics. These Jack-Asses have their heads so far up the anus of secular institutions of (so called) higher learning that they are blind to truth.
    Climate gate is another example of dishonesty in science.
    Please pull your stink’n head out of the turd canal and behold the truth.

    • Joe Martin

      Wow, you’re one angry bugger, Mark. You apparently have some major psychological projection issues to deal with. You must be a conservative Christian Republican creationist. I just hope you don’t own any firearms. You may want to AT LEAST read the title section here:

      I can only hope when you get over the “frothing at the mouth” phase, you can participate in a reasonable discussion.

    • Fed Up

      mark…ya cant argue with stupid…because they are stupid they stay stupid!

      • http://msn Mark

        Yeah, But I like to defend the One who created me, and blind Joe.

  • forrest noble

    Scientists are sometimes arrogant professing that they know how certain things work when in reality their opinion is hardly better than a guess. This observation seems to be one of those cases where their model does not match what is being observed. This is how theory is improved, by finding the exceptions that can improve the model.

    • Joe Martin

      //This observation seems to be one of those cases where their model does not match what is being observed. This is how theory is improved, by finding the exceptions that can improve the model.//


Proudly built by WPDevelopers