Not surprised, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news100965377.html

http://www.physorg.com/news100965377.html

Plasma cosmology would have no problem with this occurrence, nor would the observance of a secondary explosion come as a surprise.

In the plasma cosmology paradigm, stars are not thermonuclear furnaces, but glow discharge plasma bodies, fed by EXTERNAL filamentary Birkeland currents.

In this view, a supernova occurs when the z-pinch responsible for creating the star fails, and the double layers containing the currents break, releasing its energy. Since the power released is external to the star, it can even exceed the perceived power of the original star, if one were to assume it was a thermonuclear event.

In this approach, there is no requirement that the entirety of the mass of the original star be obliterated when such an event occurs, or that all of the supporting current filaments be destroyed. Therefore some portion of the star can remain after the initial explosion, and even behave something like a star, to a diminished and changed capacity. Because of this, it is possible to an initial explosion, and some time later, the remaining filaments can break, resulting in another explosion. It is even possible for the secondary explosions to release more energy than the original explosion. Of course this is not actually true, since the original assumptions of the amount of energy at work were based on a different view of star processes.

Of course, any number of scenarios in-between could occur as well.

-G

The workings of stars is well understood at the sub-atomic level. In fact, it would be very surprising to find that much gas in one gravitationally-bound sphere that was not undergoing fusion. So in addition to proposing that stars shine by external energy, you would have to show why they don't produce the expected internal energy. You would also have to explain where the neutrinos are coming from, and why the presence of hydrogen and helium in various amounts match what is expected if the former is being consumed and the latter produced.

Er, no.

Well, completely standard star models have no problem with the two explosions. The observers are just happy that they were there, since the event is scarce.

Mixing some scientific-sounding words doesn't make science. They have to be chosen properly and put in the right sequence. Just like a mix of 0 and 1 doesn't make a useful computer programme.

Could it have been two stars, with mass from the first star clogging the surface of the second star, so causing it to explode?