UFmbutler":swecnjjj said:I was referring to where he laid out the groundwork of his theory, in the beginning...the first half or so of the references are at least 75% his own papers, and your website. You can't build a theory on top of a flawed foundation.
Well, you would need to demonstrate that some of his earlier material was "flawed" to claim it was built on top of a flawed foundation. FYI I read a lot of papers where the author cites his own papers. That is particular true in heliosiesmology papers (where the number of experts is limited) and more "exotic" theories in general.
I'm not attacking you personally, I am just stating why I do not put any stock in what you are saying. I have said the physical/scientific reasons that give me doubts, and most of those questions still haven't been answered. Remember, this thread is about harry's assertion that stars that supernova and leave behind a remnant will collapse back in on themselves and make a "rejuvenated" star, which I believe is quite different(and somehow even more wrong) than what you/Manuel are asserting.
As you note, that is actually a somewhat different premise than what Manuel has suggested. Manuel's scenario doesn't depend on a the remnant collapsing back into "itself", rather it is dependent upon *any* (potentially new) material falling into the remaining core, potentially including previously ejected material, but not necessarily limited to previously ejected materials.