What Would an Astrophysicist Object, and Why Don't I Buy It?

New blog on the kid: Deflating a Star Size, Again, or Two · What Would an Astrophysicist Object, and Why Don't I Buy It? · Supernova of Kepler - 20 000 light years away? · Crab Nebula · Creation vs. Evolution: "Beams of Distant Starlight" · But of Course Astrophysics is a Science, Right ...?

Let's be clear, an Astrophysicist would not agree with what I just wrote, yesterday. Why? I already cited this sentence:

At a lower mass, it wouldn't be able to sustain nuclear fusion at its core, and would instead be classified as a brown dwarf — a failed star.

I don't know exactly what it means for a high mass to sustain nuclear fusion at its core. Sustain for how long?

If a star is truly 476 m across, if its volume is a globe with that diameter...

V = 4/3πr³ - OK, so, 475.9 m / 2 = 237.95
237.95³ = 13,472,777 m³
13,472,777 m³ * 4/3 * π = 56,434,637 m³

... its volume is 56,434,637 m³ - could this volume of H [hydrogen]* combining to D [deuterium], D combining to He [helium] sustain the fusion for all the time from 5199 BC to 2022 AD?

Because, these Astrophysicists actually claim that the life of stars and of the universe goes way beyond the Biblical timescale. And if this is the problem, the solution is obviously is, well, the sustaining of the fusion doesn't need to go on for a billion of years, not even 10 000 years.

Another version of the same problem is this: without a mass greater than Jupiter's (and note: while EBLM J0555-57Ab is supposed to have less diameter than Saturn, it may be considered by these as having higher density by far, they are not contradicting themselves on this one), a star cannot ignite. The fusion cannot start. Well, this means obviously self ignite, by gravitation pulling H together in such a shock that the centre gets to the heat where plasma of H starts to do fusion. When it comes to igniting a fusion in other ways, more deliberate, here are the headlines:

Fusion, the nuclear reaction that powers the Sun and the stars, is a potential source of safe, non-carbon emitting and virtually limitless energy. Harnessing fusion's power is the goal of ITER, which has been designed as the key experimental step between today's fusion research machines and tomorrow's fusion power plants.

Source: UNLIMITED ENERGY
https://www.iter.org/

I have a hard time imagining such power plants would be needing 56,434,637 m³ of plasma.

So, the key to that version is arguably, the larger mass than Jupiter's isn't needed per se, but needed for the scenario of self ignition. Precisely as the Newtonian-Laplacean Celestial Mechanics does away with any God to turn the universe around us each day, any angels to give Sun, Moon, Planets their orbits around the Zodiac, and then is left with Heliocentrism as the only thing that will fit the bill of "only moving by masses and their properties gravity and inertia" - so also the idea of self ignition by gravity pulling a very voluminous gas cloud together the only thing left for people with the belief there was no God to ignite stars on Day Four of Creation, by starting the fusion in some other way. And as Jupiter obviously has not self ignited, they conclude that an even larger mass than that of H is needed.

But if it were truly needed to sustain fusion, over shorter periods even, iter would be wasting their time.

So, the key question is, given 56,434,637 m³ of plasma - how long could that sustain fusion? If the answer is "longer than 7200 years" then the problem is solved. If not, one can imagine that EBLM J0555-57Ab started out with a higher volume, say even up to double the diameter, and gradually shrunk as fusion depleted the H fuel. Or one can recall that God has multiplied both oil** and bread and fish*** and so would have no problem multiplying the necessary H in a star either.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Venceslas of Bohemia
28.IX.2022

Apud Boleslaviam veterem, in Bohemia, sancti Wenceslai, Ducis Bohemorum et Martyris, sanctitate et miraculis gloriosi, qui, dolo fratris sui necatus, victor pervenit ad palmam.

* The chemical abbreviations are given with pronunciation in square brackets only the first time.
** 3 Kings (1 Kings) 17:16
*** Luke 9:16