Click on the images for a
Kepler would have been right had he said all this. Two major types of stars have been discovered to exist in our galaxy, named the Milky Way Galaxy, which contains an estimated 400 billion stars. One of these is the inactive type, the red type. Most of this type are of the red-dwarf type.
An estimated 75% of all the stars in the galaxy are of the M category, the low surface-temperature category. The red-dwarf stars dominate this category. They come in different sizes but are typically so small and so dim that they are hard to detect. Johannes Kepler would not have seen them.
Even the Hubble space telescope can see them just barely. The image shown here is of the closest red dwarf in the stellar neighbourhood. It is a part of the nearest solar system, named the Centauri system. It is located a mere 4.2 light years distant. The number of red dwarfs in the galaxy has been estimated by what has been observed in the stellar neighbourhood.
The Hubble image indicates that the red dwarf is surrounded by a cloud of atomic elements. This is what one would expect to see for an inactive star that attracts gravitationally the previously synthesized atomic elements, which no longer flow away with the solar wind. They would emit light by their interaction with the plasma of the original star. The light would increase in intensity with the increasing gravitational pressure in the plasma of the star, towards its center, until the atomic elements would fission and light up the central sphere.
The red dwarf might also be simply a small star that is powered by less intense plasma fusion with a lower surface temperature and lesser solar winds, so that the synthesized atomic elements form a haze around the star. Is this what we see here? Is this the destiny of our Sun?
The effective surface temperature would be significantly less if our Sun would be powered by a low-level plasma-fusion process. Its surface temperature would then be of the category M type, at 4,000 degrees Kelvin, or slightly less. This would be enough to shift the climate into deep glaciation conditions that we had in the previous glaciation period that we call the Ice Age.
In this case the sunlight spectrum would be shifted to a lower profile but would remain in range for the chlorophyll to work. The effect will likely reduce the radiated energy that we receive on Earth to a mere 30% of what we receive today. It promises to have huge consequences.
The small size of the world population at the end of the last glacial period, which is estimated to have been in the range of 1 to 10 million, indicates that living is possible in the tropics only under this type of inactive Sun, but that it won't be a picnic by any means. Food resources would have been sparse during the last Ice Age, perhaps consisting mostly of fish.
It is possible for seven billion people to live under such harsh conditions, and live richly. But this is not possible on the natural platform that can support but a few. It is only possible on a artificially created, energy intensive, high technology platforms operating in the tropics, interwoven to some degree with large extent indoor agriculture in artificial environments and lighting. These infrastructures can be easily created in automated, high-temperature, industrial processes, together with thousands of new cities and new industries, most of them becoming located afloat across the equatorial seas. In the course of the implementation, a completely new high-temperature industrial revolution would unfold, with basalt as the feed stock. It would revolutionise economics, and with free high quality housing and public facilities, it would revolutionize culture in every respect. We could create the brightest renaissance under an inactive Sun. Anything less would be insufficient. But will we raise ourselves up to that level and become human beings in the highest sense that our humanity enables? Will we grasp the only option we have and live? I think we will, and we will do it before our Sun joins the rank of the 300 billion inactive stars in the galaxy.
That the red-dwarf stars are inactive stars becomes evident by comparison. Active stars are typically surrounded by a large blue atmosphere, perhaps of highly activated hydrogen, whereas the inactive stars tend to be surrounded by a darker, more reddish glow, perhaps of less activated hydrogen. The active, brilliant stars are thereby, as by their nature, of an entirely different class.
The stars are classed by luminance into 6 categories, that can be grouped to two groups. One group contains the really active stars, type A, B, and O, with a surface temperature ranging upwards to 60,000 degrees. The star, Fomalhaut, from the previous image, is located on the low end of this group.
The group of extremely active stars is small in numbers. About 3 billion stars belong to this group. These brilliant stars are most likely the ones to be observed by the automated star mapping systems that observe 100s of thousands of stars simultaneously.
The other group combines the lesser brilliant stars. This group contains the Sun of the Earth. And stars with a slightly lower to slightly higher surface temperature than our Sun. There are about 90 billion stars in this group.
These lesser, still active stars, like our Sun, tend to be more vulnerable to going inactive and becoming red stars, being less bright. They are not of the type that is routinely observed, by reasons of their large number and their comparative low luminosity, so that no one would likely notice individual stars of this group going inactive, and if so, the observation would then most likely be recognized as noise in the system, since inactive stars are deemed impossible under the hydrogen-sun theory. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that when such stars go inactive, when they revert to a lower surface temperature, that the event will be noticed or be reported.
The mainstream cosmology has no basis for recognizing inactive stars. In mainstream cosmology every star, small or large, is deemed to be a hydrogen sun that cannot go inactive, for reasons of it being lit up with nuclear fusion occurring within it. This theory still rules the world, regardless of the fact that a hydrogen sun cannot produce the seamless band of color that we see in the sunlight.
The theory also still rules contrary to the obvious fact that our Sun as a sphere of hydrogen gas, would be a thousand times heavier than it actually is, in comparison with Jupiter and Saturn, nor would a sphere of hydrogen gas of the size of the Sun be able to exist, as the resulting intense gravitational force would crush all atomic structures in its core. In order to rescue the hydrogen-sun theory, the concept of electron degeneracy has been invented that supposedly counteracts gravitational pressure acting on atomic structures. The theory supposedly enables the compression of the hydrogen gas at the core of the Sun to a 200-times greater density than water, without the atoms becoming crushed.
The hydrogen-sun theory becomes even more impossible when one considers the existence of giant stars, like the star UY Scuti, that is 1700-times larger in diameter than our Sun is. A gas sphere of this gigantic size can evidently only be upheld with magic. A sphere of plasma of this immensely huge size, of course, would be able to exist quite naturally. It would be upheld by the repelling electric force of the protons in plasma. The electric force is one of the strongest forces in the universe. It is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the force of gravity. With the plasma-sun concept, for which the stars themselves stand as evidence, the impossible paradoxes that pervade mainstream cosmology fall by the wayside. No magic is required in the real world, or epicycles, or fudge factors.
Mainstream cosmology champions a number of impossible paradoxes that are routinely explained away with magic. For example, no physical principle exists outside the plasma cosmology, for the solar planets to orbit their Sun in a tight ecliptic plain as they do. Exotic causes are cited in mainstream cosmology.
Likewise, no physical principle exists in mainstream cosmology that would force the stars in a galaxy to align themselves into the thin ecliptic disks formation that we behold. In plasma cosmology the phenomenon is recognized as a basic electromagnetic phenomenon that has been replicated in laboratory experiments. No magic is active here.
In addition, in mainstream cosmology all the stars of a galaxy are deemed to be orbiting the galactic center. This is an impossible concept that Kepler's laws of orbital mechanics render totally impossible. But why would anyone care about that? In mainstream cosmology the impossible happens by magic wherever required to keep the doctrines satisfied. In this case the impossible is deemed to be possible by the application of the magic of super-massive black holes, dark matter, and dark energy, which no one has ever seen or can see, and are not even theoretically possible.
This means that what we see expressed in the stars reflects a totally different operational platform in Plasma Cosmology. In Plasma Cosmology stars can go inactive, and apparently have done so, even among the big stars. Going inactive, of course, doesn't mean a complete turn-off, but means instead that their potential high-intensity state no longer happens. The famous Hertzsprung-Russel Star-Data diagram is arranged by the star's surface temperature, from right to left. The grouping of star types that is shown here, arranged from M on the right for low temperature stars that include the red dwarfs, all the way to O on the left, for the super-intense high-temperature stars that have a surface temperature of up to 60,000 degrees. At first glance it appears that a linear progression exists, whereby the larger stars are inherently hotter stars. The progression holds true up to a point.
In the sequence of comparison of progressively larger stars, shown here, only two intensely active stars appear after the Sun, with the remaining types standing as examples of what one might term, inactive stars. Of the active stars, the star Sirius in panel 3, stands as an example for a range of active stars that are larger than the Sun and have a higher surface temperature. The Sun has a surface temperature of 5,800 degrees Kelvin. The larger stars exceed this.
The star that is closest in size to the Sun, is the star Fomalhaut. It is 1.8 times larger in diameter, and has the correspondingly higher surface temperature of 8,500 degrees.
The star Sirius, in turn, is twice as large as the Sun, and has a surface temperature of 9,900 degrees, almost twice that of the Sun.
For the star Spica-A, which is the larger star of a dual star system and is 7.4 times as big as the Sun, the measured surface temperature is a whopping 22,400 degrees.
A principle appears to be reflected in this progression between the size of stars and their correspondingly higher surface temperature. The progression in temperature seems to indicate that larger stars are able to attract larger volumes of interstellar plasma, which electromagnetic fields focus around them, that the stars consume in surface plasma fusion. The focused plasma becomes more concentrated around the larger stars, by the larger star having a greater electric and gravitational potential, which all play a role in the plasma-fusion dynamics.
The progression breaks down when one considers the still larger stars, Arcturus, in pannel 4, and Aldebaran. Both stars a larger in diameter, than the stars in the group represented by Sirius
The star, Arcturus is 25 times larger in diameter than the Sun, but is a cold star with a surface temperature of only 4,200 degrees. The same is evident for the star Aldebaran.
Alderbaran is 44 times larger in size than the Sun, but achieves only a surface temperature of 3,910 degrees.
The progression in surface temperature by size is broken by these two examples, as if the part of the dynamics that causes intense solar activity no longer functions. Instead of Arcturus, by it being larger in size, having a still higher surface temperature than the 22,400 degrees of Spica-A, Arcturus is a much colder star and Alderbaran even more so. The break in the progression suggests that a systemic failure has occurred in these cases that enables only a lesser type of plasma fusion to occur.
For the Sun, the high-density plasma compression, which enables its 5,800 degrees high temperature plasma fusion to happen, appears to be the product of a 3-fold nested system of primer fields. If one of the three stages of the nested primer fields would fail, the result would be a much-reduced plasma pressure around the Sun, and a much reduced plasma fusion activity occurring on its surface, with a much lower surface temperature being the result of it. The concept of a 3-fold nested system of primer fields is difficult to illustrate and to visualize, but evidence for it does exist.
For the stars Arcturus and Alderbaran one of the stages may have broken down as the result of the diminishing plasma density in the galaxy, or may not have existed.
It evidently takes a lot of plasma to power a large star like Alderbaran to its full capacity.
Also the plasma density may vary regionally across the galaxy. We have evidence for that.
The low surface temperature of Arcturus and Alderbaran is not necessarily typical for large stars. The exception is the star, Rigel, that we find in panel 5. This star is 3 times larger than Arcturus and almost twice as large as Alderbaran. It should be a dim star by its size in comparison with Arcurus and Alderbaran. But it isn't. It is intensively active, though not quite as active as it should be for an active star of its size.
The giant star Rigel is nearly 80-times larger than the Sun and has an estimated surface temperature of 12,000 degrees, located at a distance of 880 light years from us. Rigel proves that giant stars can be highly active stars if the plasma density exists. For Rigel, there might not be enough of it. A fully active star of its size would have a surface temperature of 50,000 to 60,000 degrees.
Quite a few giant, bright blue stars do exist in the galaxy. Sometimes they are referred to as blue stragglers.
In the classification by surface temperature, the giant active star, Rigel, is of the B class of roughly half a billion stars. The O class of stars with surface temperature exceeding 30,000 degrees, typically into the range of 65,000 degrees, is extremely small. Only 20,000 stars of this group are believed to exist in our galaxy. They are typically found at the center of a nebula. Their luminosity is several million times that of the Sun.
In the two examples of class-O stars, the atomic material that make up the nebula are evidently the plasma-fusion products of the super-active super-giant stars. The atomic elements in the nebula emit light by their interaction with the plasma flowing in the sphere of the nebula, typically in the form of solar wind and interstellar plasma flowing through the nebula.
The O-class star that has created the nebula shown here, shines bright and clear across 5,200 light years of space. But not all giant stars are of this category. Many of the giant stars are inactive stars.
All the giant stars that are shown here from Antares on, in panel 5, to the super-giant UY Scuti, in panel 6, are inactive stars. While these stars span a large range in size, they share one common feature. Their surface temperature is 'cold,' in the range of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees, which is also the typical surface temperature of the red-dwarf stars.
For example, the main star of the Antares system, Antares A, is a supergiant star that is 880 times larger than the Sun, but has a surface temperature of only 3,400 degrees, which is typical for inactive stars. It is so dim that it is barely visible across its 550 light years distance. Antares B, in comparison, which is an active companion star, is only 5.2 times as large as the Sun but has a surface temperature of 18,500 degrees that is typical for what may be termed, active stars. In the image shown here, the size of the smaller Antares-B is dramatically exaggerated, perhaps to illustrate the visual difference between an active and inactive star. In its active days, Antares-A might have been a superstar.
Antares-A is 300 million kilometers in diameter. Its huge size dwarves the Sun, but, because of its low surface temperature of 3,400 degrees, as an inactive star, the giant star is only 10,000 times as luminous as the Sun, with a dim red hue, instead of the millions of times greater luminosity that it might have once had as an active star.
The star Betelgeuse is of the same category, together with countless more like it. Betelgeuse is an inactive giant that is 1180 times larger in diameter, than the Sun, and is thereby only 120,000 times more luminous with its low surface temperature of only 3,300 degrees, instead of the million times greater luminosity it could have.
In mainstream cosmology, the inactive super-giants are deemed to be stars that have consumed their hydrogen fuel, and have begun burning helium instead. The concept renders them as candidates for future supernova explosions when their helium fuel is exhausted, whereby the stars are deemed to contract. In plasma cosmology, however, where stars are recognized as spheres of plasma, which do not burn themselves out and collapse, the supernova phenomenon is far-less exotic. It may be caused by a wayward planet colliding with the plasma-sphere of a sun. In the collision, its atomic elements would become crushed by the star's internal gravity in a chain-reaction nuclear-fission event that would be similar to a planet size atomic bomb going off.
I am bringing this up, because we might be seeing the same type of nuclear fission process happening on the very small scale, in the giant inactive stars. An inactive star attracts atomic elements with its gravity, from its surroundings, and crushes their atomic structures with gravitational pressure within its plasma sphere. While this is possible, it would likely result in a lower temperature than 3,300 degrees, which means that the giant stars are powered by low-level plasma fusion instead.
Antares might be an example for a star burning by nuclear fission of atomic matter drawn from its surrounding. It might also be an example of low-level plasma fusion happening in a low-density plasma environment in which the synthesized atomic elements hang around the star like a cloud.
In this sense, when our own Sun goes inactive, with which the next Ice Age begins, it would remain powered by interstellar plasma, but in a radically less-compressed form around it.
The Earth will not loose its Sun then, when the Sun goes inactive, but have a cooler, dimmer, and more diffused Sun with a surface temperature of roughly 4000 degrees Kelvin.
Much the same can be said about the hyper-giant star, UY Scuti, that stands out brightly in the star fields across a distance of 9,500 light years. This star makes the term, gigantic, seem small. It has a diameter of 2.4 billion kilometers, but its surface is cold. Its surface temperature is a mere 3,300 degrees that is typical for a star being lit up by low-intensity plasma fusion, or by nuclear fission.
It is the star's enormous size that makes it 340,000 times as luminous as our Sun, even while it is technically an inactive star. As an active star, it would have millions of times the luminance of the Sun. Its surface temperature would then be acceding 50,000 degrees.
In this context, the star Rigel may be at the border line. The plasma density around it is probably too low to enable its full potential, but after that, each of the large stars that stand as examples here, are completely inactive, all being powered to nearly the same temperature regardless of their size, either by low-level plasma fusion, or nuclear fission, or both.
When our Sun goes inactive, with its surface temperature becoming reduced from the present 5,800 degrees to the 4000 degrees range, a 70% reduction in radiated energy would result that would be similar to what we see in the umbra of the sunspots. The reduction would make the tropics slightly colder than the regions at the 70 degree latitude presently are. Some form of outdoor agriculture would therefore likely be able to continue there, maybe with enhanced lighting. In practice a large portion of the agriculture would have to be carried out in indoor facilities with artificial environments, artificial sunlight and artificially enhanced CO2 density, and so on. This is in essence what the stars are teaching us.
What we see in the stars illustrates to some degree how deeply the plasma-density in our galaxy has diminished.
We presently experience the consequence of the long-ongoing down-ramping of the plasma density in our galaxy that we have evidence of. The down-ramping began roughly 100 million years ago. The galaxy that we see today with its vast array of inactive stars, is the result of the massive down-ramping in the galaxy. The measured long-term climate variations on Earth appears to be representative of the cyclical plasma density variations in the galaxy. And those variations are big.
Two-thirds along the down-ramping to the present state, Antarctica froze up, then thawed out again when the shorter cycle peaked, and a few million years later it froze up once more and has remained frozen. These are huge climate effects on the Earth. They are evidently the result of huge causes that affect the entire galaxy, and the stars within the galaxy. Stars going inactive appear to be the natural consequence of the long-term down-ramping in the galaxy. Our Sun is caught up in the dynamics of the presently diminishing galactic system. The resulting effects are obviously large, which we cannot escape from, but which we can adjust our living to.
When our Sun goes inactive, its operating photosphere will likely become transformed to a lower intensity state, rather than vanish as the innermost primer fields collapse that focus high-density plasma onto the Sun.
Most likely we will see the photosphere simply go dimmer, and the space around the Sun become fuzzier, as the solar winds won't sweep the synthesized atomic elements away as efficiently as they do now. Some form of solar wind will likely continue after the photosphere transforms itself.
Should the photosphere vanish completely, the previously synthesized atomic elements would no longer flow away with the solar wind, but would fall back onto the Sun by gravitational attraction. When the attracted elements fall deep into a Sun, a point will be reached when the increasing gravitational pressure will crush the atomic structures of the attracted elements. In the resulting nuclear fission process the previously invested binding energy would become released. The released energy would create a luminous fuzzy shell within the original plasma sphere. Both potentials are possible, though at the present stage the nuclear-fission potential is extremely unlikely,
The Hubble space telescope has provided us a perfect photograph of a very-small red-dwarf star in the closest solar system to our own, the Centauri system, which is a mere 4.2 light years distant. Is the tiny sphere that we see here, of one of the smallest of the red-dwarf stars, a sphere where nuclear fission takes place? We see the star surrounded by atomic material that glows dimly in the star's plasma sphere. Or do we see in this image an example of a tiny star that is powered by low-level plasma fusion? Most likely, that's what we see.
However, the existence of the nuclear-fission powered stage of a star, cannot be ruled out, regardless of its original size. Our galaxy is a tangled network of a vast array of plasma streams that are always in motion and twisting in the spiral arms by the principle of Birkeland currents.
When a star looses its connection to the interstellar plasma streams, its plasma fusion stops. Nuclear fission would then be the only energy source a star would have, until the star would be reconnected again with the galactic network of plasma streams.
In its disconnected state, the nuclear-fission process would render the deactivated star, dark, and smaller in apparent size than its original size, and entropic in nature. Any star that is not externally powered, is inherently entropic. The entropic dim star would then consume the atomic material that it has created earlier during its active state, and when all that would be consumed, the dim star would become a white-dwarf star.
The white-dwarf star stage might have been reached in some places. Some areas in our galaxy have quite a few of them. Our Sun might have been a disconnected white dwarf once around 700 million years ago, when, as it has been theorized, the Earth froze up completely, and had remained a snowball for a few tens of millions of years. That's just a theory.
Examples of white-dwarf stars are encircled in this image. At the star's dead stage, the pinprick of light appears to be caused by a type of synchrotron radiation that emits light under conditions of extreme plasma pressure, without any atomic elements being involved for the emission of light.
In mainstream cosmology, the white-dwarf star is regarded to be a burnt-out star past the helium stage that has lost thereby its ability to main its nuclear fusion process within. It is believed that electron degeneracy then allows its atomic material to condense, and with it its remaining thermal energy. It is believed that a white dwarf is as dense as if all the mass of the Sun was packed into the sphere of the Earth, which then would glow brightly until it would cool into oblivion. Of course, the electron-degeneracy theory is just a theory that like an epicycle is needed to uphold the hydrogen-Sun theory in the first place, which has become a doctrine in modern time that stands like a giant in denial of the plasma cosmology concept that is actually supported by a large body of evidence.
Another form of white-dwarf star is also possible in plasma cosmology, in a different manner, which may be what is actually being observed. The mysterious white-dwarf star might simply be a brown-dwarf star that exists in a region of high-density interstellar plasma, in which it becomes an active star. This possibility is the most likely one that we see evident here.
Evidence for such a case exists in the Gliese 229 binary system. In this binary-star system, we have a brown-dwarf star orbiting a red-dwarf star. It illustrates the principle of orbiting stars.
The large red dwarf, in this example, is the parent star Gliese 229A. It is 69% as large in diameter than the Sun, and is 59% as large in mass, with a surface temperature of 3,600 degrees. The small companion star, Gliese 229-B, in comparison, is roughly the size of Jupiter. It is a mere 10% of the size of the Sun. Its low-level plasma fusion generates a surface temperature of less than a thousand degrees.
Here a problem would begin if the small brown star did not have the gravitational pressure within it, to cause the fissioning of the atomic elements to happen, that it attracts and would surely attract in close proximity to another star, which in part it would also synthesize itself. As a consequence, the atomic elements would accumulate within such a star, which would render these stars extremely-high-density stars, which they are. The small brown stars are believed to contain 50 times more mass than Jupiter. Such an extremely dense mass in atomic elements would cause the star to eventually fission in a supernova explosion. But this doesn't happen. The reason is inherent in plasma physics.
In the case of a high-mass brown-dwarf star, like WISE1828, that may have a 50 times greater mass than Jupiter contained in the same volume as Jupiter, the star would have a mass density that is 12 times greater than that of the Earth, which has the highest mass density of all the planets. The comparison renders the brown-dwarf star many times denser than led, even denser than uranium.
How is this enormous mass-density possible for such a small star? In atomic physics the tight packaging would be a miracle that's not possible by any means. But in plasma physics, this extreme mass density is possible, and is evidently quite natural.
More than 1,800 brown-dwarf stars have been identified in our stellar neighbourhood. They are too small and numerous to be shown here. The reason why it is possible for these high-density plasma stars to exist, can be recognized when one explores the inherently low mass-density in atomic structures.
An atom is a dynamic structure in which the swarming of electrons around a nucleus neutralizes the repelling force of the electric field of the protons at its center. The resulting packaging gives the atom a specific mass density.
That the resulting mass-density in an atom is extremely low, becomes apparent when one considers that an atom is typically 100,000 times larger than the sum of its parts, which are the protons and the electrons that form the package.
In plasma, however, which is made up of protons and electrons in free roaming form, the electrons are not energized enough to perform specific functions. They simply remain free flowing.
In unbound plasma, of course, the protons all repel one another by the electric force of their equal polarity. The repulsion, however, is counteracted by the electric force of the electrons that have the opposite polarity. When the electron density in the plasma is high, all the plasma particles can exist together much-more tightly packed than in atomic form. This principle enables the tiny brown-dwarf stars to have an enormous mass density.
Another, similar case, of a tiny star orbiting a large star, in this case an extremely active star, is the case of the star, Sirius. We see a tiny star orbiting the large star. The tiny star shines brightly in the dense plasma environment that powers the large star. This tiny pin-prick star is regarded to be a high-mass white dwarf. It is extremely unlikely that a white dwarf would be found at this close distance to an active star. It is far-more likely that we see a brown dwarf in this image, that is intensely activated in the high-density plasma sphere that typically surrounds a large active star, as Sirius is. Sirius is twice as large as the Sun and nearly twice as hot..
In the plasma universe, any size of star can be formed with plasma concentrations, and have evidently been formed as we see it in the case of UY Scuti. The star is 1700 times as large in diameter than the Sun, which makes it 5 billion times larger in volume, while its mass is believed to be barely 10 times larger than that of the Sun. As one researcher has put it, the mass of this giant star is so thin that it is almost a vacuum.
It is hard to imagine, even in mainstream cosmology, that a star with this extremely low mass density would be able to exist as a hydrogen star powered by nuclear fusion that is caused by gas-compression. Only a miracle could cause that to happen, and to cause the resulting fusion to make the resulting star 340,000 times as luminous as our Sun presently is, with only a 10 times greater mass.
In plasma cosmology, in contrast, no miracle is required for very large stars to exist and to operate.
Under the force of large gravitational pressure at the center of a star, the much lighter electrons in the plasma mix tend to become squeezed out of the interior of the plasma sphere unto its surface. When this happens, the interior expands by the force of proton repulsion that is less counteracted by the diminished electron-density, which asserts an attracting force on the protons. As a consequence the star becomes larger. By this electric principle, the mass-density of a plasma star increases towards the surface, which is the complete opposite of what we find in atomic mass concentrations that have their greatest density at the center of a sphere.
With a plasma star having its greatest mass-density at its surface, extremely large stars can form that have a relatively small total mass, and operate efficiently.
Even in cases when the large sphere of a star is only able to achieve low-level plasma fusion, that gives it a surface temperature of a mere 3,300 degrees, the resulting large-surface star becomes nevertheless a highly luminous star. It becomes this not by its own power, but because its very large surface area functions as a very large catalyst for interstellar plasma streams. This is how it is possible for a star with 10 times the mass of the Sun, to outshine the Sun 340,000 fold, even while it is almost empty inside.
The principle, evidently, also applies to our own star, the Sun. The Sun's mass-density is roughly the same as that of the planet Jupiter. If the Sun was a sphere of hydrogen gas, its mass-density would be a thousand times greater, because of the gravitational compression at the center of the Sun. Jupiter is twice as large in volume than Saturn. Consequently, Jupiter has double the mass-density, because of the greater mass compression, with both being gas planets. By this principle, the Sun should have a thousand times greater mass-density than Jupiter, with it having a thousand times greater volume. But that's not the case. However, with the Sun being a sphere of plasma that is largely empty inside, being essentially but a shell of plasma, the low mass-density that it is known to have, is just about right.
In its presently highly active state, the Sun's plasma shell is dense enough to support surface plasma fusion that heats it up to 5,800 degrees Kelvin. A larger sun, by this principle, would have a denser shell with a greater electron density at the surface, which would enable higher surface temperatures, as is indeed the case.
With the Sun being at the low-end in the range of active stars, when the primer fields become disabled that focus interstellar plasma onto it, the Sun will have to work with what the unfocused interstellar plasma streams deliver to it. The resulting low-level default value appears to be in the range of 4000 degrees or less.
Some of the very large stars have lower default values, that are nearly the same across the board. These values might be lower, because there simply may not be enough density in the default plasma background for the giant stars to achieve their full inactive potential. But this shouldn't concern us for the case of the Sun, which is far too small a star for such considerations.
It is enough for us to know that evidence tells us that when our Sun goes into its inactive mode during the glaciation period, its surface temperature will drop to near the 4,000 degrees level, and that it will become briefly reactivated in intervals of 1470 years, all the way through the 90,000-year glaciation period.
That's what the Dansgaard Oeschger oscillations indicate, has happened in the past. That's what also the stellar dynamics indicate with a high degree to be totally possible, and will likely happen again in the future as it has happened all the way through the previous glaciation cycle.
This evidence that one sees presently, rules out the white-dwarf stage and the entropic red-dwarf stage, but supports the type of inactive stage at which the Sun is being powered by interstellar plasma that is less focused on it, because of potentially collapsed primer fields, and is less concentrated around it than it presently is, with a remaining surface temperature of 4,000 degrees or less. That's the bottom line.