You are a troll. First you post a rant where you pretend that stellar formation is all a big mystery (even though we've got libraries with observational data on all kinds of stars in pretty much every stage of their development) and now you are apparently arguing that the models that scientists make of reality cannot be falsified by… observing reality!?

Bill, observing stuff IS a method of falsifying models, it's done all the time.

Suppose the 'seed' to these stars are slightly different. One is initially able to gravitate gas and material quicker than the other.

Then add the fact it is possible one star was formed in a slightly denser column of gas than the other; allowing it to gain critical mass sooner than its sibling.

Certainly, stellar nurseries aren't constant in their density of material and gas; so it is possilble stars located close together could be different than the other. However, I believe this is probably more the exception than the rule.

Stars can capture each other, but only if there is three or more stars involved in the interaction to remove energy from the two-star system in question. Conservation of energy precludes two stars forming a binary system on their own if they were not formed together. Now, although two stars are never truly in isolation, three (or more) stars have to interact in a fairly specific way to produce a binary system. This makes such an event highly unlikely – it probably does happen, but only for a vanishingly small number of stars.

Steve Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

"I still don't see why scientists would speculate that all binaries are identical."

Scientists do not speculate that all binary systems are identical – it is an observational fact that many are not. But the story states that it is a young pair, and it also happens to be an observational fact that pretty much all young binary systems consist of very similar members. Accordingly, formation theories have taken this fact into account and aimed to explain it. Until there was observational evidence to suggest otherwise, it would be nothing but speculation to suggest that young binary members may be dissimilar!

And now there is observational evidence to suggest that binary members may indeed be dissimilar in age and mass, so obviously a mechanism for breaking this symmetry will have to be found and incorporated into the current theory. Which doesn't make the current theory trash, it just expands upon it and refines it where required as suggested by the evidence at hand.

The question I would like to know is have we ever found a perfectly uniform distribution of gas? If we haven't, Im wondering what trash can they pulled this theory out of.

Im no rocket scientist, but one with even limited knowledge on the subject would assume that a star would form much faster in a more dense part of a gas cloud and grow at a much faster rate than its "twin" if it forms in a less dense area

But I'm sure I don't have to tell you what a big deal the "who's older" thing is with twins regardless of the difference. Even a couple of minutes is enough for one to say proudly, "I'm the oldest!" (and probably get a poke in the ribs from the other).

"Astrophysicists have assumed that binary stars form simultaneously, and so this discovery forces theorists back to the drawing board to determine if their models can produce binaries with stars that form at different times."

This can't be right, it gives a wrong idea on how astronomy is done as well. I'm pretty sure people were making models for both eventualities and at most you could say that the distribution of these different types of binaries is different from what was expected.

I'm not aware of any hypothesis that says that stars can't capture each other gravitationally when the oppertunity comes along at pretty much any stage of their lifecycle. Of course, i might just be wrong since i don't get paid to know this stuff.