Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: om@umr.edu on 10/04/2006 18:02:50
-
Recent news stories by CNN (5 Apr 2006) and ABC (6 Apr 2006) and the 6 April 2006 issue of Nature record one of the scientific community's largest shock waves.
1. MIT scientists discover that Earth-like planets "form around a star born in a violent supernova explosion"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/05/supernova.blast.ap/index.html
[See: Nature 440 (6 Apr 2006) 772]
2. ANU scientists find that "The chemical composition of the Sun appears very different to what we assumed".
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1606906.htm
[See: Nature 440 (6 Apr 2006) 776]
The results are summarized in today's issue of CCNet, "A NEW SUN EMERGES: LATEST FINDINGS THROW SOLAR PARADIGM INTO DISARRAY".
The importance of these new findings for astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology can be recognized in the fact that the Sun accounts for almost the entire mass of the solar system (>99%) and the Sun serves as a model for the other stars in the cosmos.
This artist sketch of the MIT discovery
http://www.universetoday.com/am/uploads/20060407-spitzer-full.jpg
looks remarkably like the birth of the solar system published about 30 years ago as Fig 7 in Trans. Missouri Acad. Sciences 9 (1975) p. 118; as Fig 5 in Proc. Robert A. Welch Foundation Conference XXI. Cosmochemistry (1977) p. 271; and Science 195 (1977) p. 208]
http://web.umr.edu/~om/picpages/snexplo.html
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.umr.edu/~om
-
Fascinating data thanks
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
Here is a related CNN news story from 2002 with interesting comments from Drs. David Hathaway and Jeffrey Larsen.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/
"This cannot be correct. I can think of at least half a dozen different lines of evidence that say that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium with only a tiny amount of iron," said David Hathaway of NASA's Marshal Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Added Jeffrey Larsen, an astronomer at the University if Arizona in Tucson:
"A supernova is incredibly energetic. You don't form planets in the aftermath of one of these, since the outer layers of the star are literally blasted off into space for thousands of light years," he said.
"The space next to an exploded star is very, very, very clean. We're standing here on a planet, so we didn't have a supernova in our past."
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.umr.edu/~om
-
Thanks Oliver Sir, for the links, and the picture which I have never seen before, the ring picture is looking like a primary proceeds to become a planet through the formation of it,
the explosion of a star may be create the elements later they might be turn into the thick and frozen like shapes and later they become the planets, because at the very first inception of the procedure: air+lighter items+gasses+magma+rigidity+formation of the planet, the event in the picture may be turning to this sort of stages.
infact this is an artist view, but the picture is much intelligent and showing that such may be cause for the formation, if we study the theory of formation of the objects in the sky, then this is much more interesting,
the routine anatomy of sky is starts with the bigbang all the time, but basically we are doing some mistake in calculating period and the formations of the objects in the sky, many time one question falls in the mind, that " why they are there",
who has very planningly spot them at that places, how they are rotating, why they are not still? why we are fail in solving the "sun's birth period", how it was formed? how many contents are there in the sun? why sun was formed? why not sun like another stars looking to do the same act like sun in the solar system? why this one is doing so? what is the life span of the sun ?
the scientist on the earth are saying that " sun is a ball of hydrogen and a few percentage of hellium" some are saying that sun is a very hot cluster of gasses cycling in a different directions within that oval, some are saying that sun is abundant with phosphorous,
there are many stories related with sun, but when if an individual tries to give some examples of the ancient studies and material regarding with sun, " the new scientists of physics simply laugh at that by calling it a psudoscience".
I will opined that the equation of the sun is not yet solved properly, no one has plot a intelligent design of the sun very precisely, no one is succeed uptill to reach close to that " hottest spot in the sky".
because boundaries are there, if a gas is there then why don't sun disperse away? if the H and he is there, then their sources? i think if someone doing an experiment in the laboratory by taking H and He in a 20x20 room, and started the fusion process manualy to that gas ball what will happen? it will burn for the sake and later it will disperse away?
if a big experiment we do we will get the same result but volume will be much more than this one, here the M is H and He, and energy is escaping fastly that is " light" it will go in all direction of that room, the every corner will be lit up by that light,
if there the holding matter who is holding the functions continuously to burn day and night then in the formation such facility is inbuilt, exactly in the sun there is a different facility which we are not yet getting closer to draw the correct assumption and hence getting problem and the individual is being victimise by the modern science,
there is a need to think on the sun with a different perspective " take the assistance of the science, why not, but see for the experement and to know the truth,
we have to think in a some rare concepts and rebuild our thinking in that direction, there is nothing bad or say what is wrong in drawing the assumptions about sun " sun has a ample base of magnetic plasma, sun has an iron properties in its infrastructural desings, may be the magnetic plasma itself is holding some iron contents into it, may be the solar wind is spreading some iron contents in the solar system, but have you heard ever that " sun is swalloing the gasses every after 2.5 hours".
( but the ancient book is saying this one), how they know it that sun is swallowing the gasses every after 2. 5 hours, the todays scicence has never tought us that something happening like this, they don't know, only they are adhered with the concept that sun is having
H and only He, and only very few contents "this is they are saying that this is there like oxygen, positron, and other antiparticles," the antiparticles are but natural during the fusion process of H and He, but what the other side is telling that sun is not only H and He, but its invisible infrastructure is well formed of iron base, may be in plasma, may be in gas, "if we go to the iron-smith, the iron smith gives the shape to the iron rod in his own way, when he gives the heat then the iron looks more soft one,
if we say that at the temperature of say some 20000 degree temperature, the iron rod will be invisible in the process but its contents will be there, the same function is inbuilt in the sun, " by the very high magnetic properties of the flares sun is catching the gasses into it and it is re-meeting into the sun ! " and by the chain process the functions are going on and going on, only H and He are not the miraculous contents of the sun,
Something is different there which we don't know yet, getting photos, and x-ray photos, we will get nothing, but to collect the sample from a very close of the sun will solve this question that sun is built of what? Sun is formed from...?
mercury and alpha centaury are the main target objects nearby the sun can also to take advantage to study the sun, " in the ancient study of the astrology,
there is an enormous importance of " mercury" has shown, the mercury is called as a brilliant planet, it is a rigid planet, and un productive, since it is getting continuous heat, as far as its uses are concern, and it is also called in the ancient history that mercury is not as a parents, ( we know when we use parent word then there are issues to that parents), mercury is not a part of this one.
later mercury may turn into magma, or already floating formations are there in mercury are inbuilt, since then the property of the nature of mercury is just like the property of mercury in the laboratory.
in different word i would like to say that sun itself is a creator of its own food, the H and He never will be able to prepare its own food, means when the fusion process starts the H and He will never comes into its original shapes or properties, it will be eject forever from that spot, but still they are holding on the platform of the sun ( means on the surface of the sun),
how this mass gain by the sun the scientist don't know, but the above lines of the ancient quotes clearly indicates that " sun is steadily working with a great intensity to collect the outer (gas material) by pulling it on the surface with the powerful magnetic-tycoons, with a powerful magnetic beams spreading above its atmosphere and continuously getting its food for the burning, there is no H and He is forming, the same are inbuilt in the gasses which are coming from the outer world of the sun.
( please omit the mistakes in writing and waive my writing style)
Sunil Deshpande
-
Whatever the Sun is in reality, we should give the highest respect to those who are always seeking for facts. It was a shame that the whole society lived on an assumption for decades and many so called "scientists" bet their shirts on this assumption only because of their stubborness.
--Facts can not be covered for too long--
-
Professor Manuel,
would you agree that the unexpectedly low concentrations of Oxygen-16 in the lunar soil sample strongly suggest that the amount of dust present during the formation of the sun was unusually low? If not, what do you think it indicates? If so, what do you think is the significance of this low dust content?
On a related point would you rule out the possibility that iron-60 was formed by supernovae within the same GMC from which the sun was formed? If so, why?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.
-
Hi Ophiolite,
I'm in San Francisco, away from my office, but I will try to answer your questions from here.
1. The low O-16 in the Sun is exactly what one would expect from the trend of increasing O-16 in planetary material with distance from the Sun.
Experimental data collected in various years are posted on my web page. The data reported in 1976 for O-16 in different classes of meteorites and planets are plotted here:
http://web.umr.edu/~om/Data/1976Data.htm
The Sun lies near the lower left corner in this figure. The abundance of O-16 increases as the abundance of Fe decreases in moving away from the Sun.
Closest to the Sun in terms of O-16, Fe, and physical distance are the ordinary meteorites and rocky, iron-rich planets composed mostly of even-Z elements (Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca).
Furtherest from the Sun in terms of O-16, Fe and physical distance are the carbonaceous meteorites that formed out of the elements that comprise the giant Jovian planets.
This material exhibits excess O-16 from He-burning and excess Xe-136 from the r-process. The Galileo mission to Jupiter confirmed our 1983 prediction that its He-rich atmosphere would contain excess Xe-136.
You can go to my web page and look at the data for 1998, or you can probably "google" the data by searching for Ken Windler's analysis of Jupiter's xenon.
2. The Fe-60 at the birth of the solar system was made in the same supernova event that produced massive iron meteorites composed almost entirely of Fe,Ni.
These iron meteorites accreted in the Fe-rich region surrounding the collapsed SN core, a pulsar, to form the iron cores of the terrestrial planets close to the Sun.
The Sun formed on the pulsar.
With kind regards,
OLiver K. Manuel
http://www.umr.edu/~om
-
Hi Ophiolite,
I found Ken Windler's analysis of isotope data from the Galileo mission to Jupiter.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf
The results show that the link of primordial He with Xe-136 extends from the microscopic scale of invisible meteorite minerals that formed at the birth of the solar system, billions of years ago, to the AU scale of planets as they exist today.
These results show that large scale chemical gradients in the solar system today (e.g. Fe enriched near the Sun; H, He and C enriched in the outer planets) were inherited from the parent star that gave birth to the solar system in a supernova explosion 5 Gy ago.
With kind regards,
Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om
-
"Bing- quote: facts cannot be covered too long."
but see the modern scientist of the new age are failed in showing the true sun and its initial design.
-
Naked Scientists
May be interested in new evidence that:
a) Planets were ejected from the Sun five (5) billion years (Gy) ago,
b) Neutron-repulsion, rather than H-fusion, powers the Sun and the cosmos, and
c) Shifts in the position of the energetic SN remnant core in the Sun produce solar cycles and climate changes reflect:
1. "The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", by Hilton Ratcliffe. This 428 page book was published in 2007 and is available from major book companies, including Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Heresy-Confessions-Dissident-Astronomer/dp/1434307271
For reviewers' comments, see
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1434307271/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/105-6886955-6801248?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
2. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114.
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
3. "Fingerprints of a local supernova," by O. Manuel and H. Ratcliffe to be published in "Supernova Research" [Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, in press, 2008] 38pp.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2007/20071202_Manuel_and_Ratcliffe.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
-
When I read about other EU collaborations on projects such as the 'MAGIC' telescope I am all the more sickened that we are abandoning astronomical research so that we can squander our monies of ridiculous fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers, nuclear armed submarines and the 'war against terror' on behalf of our American masters.
-
Anyone interested in global climate change and NASA's efforts to blame this on anthropological CO2 - rather than natural variations in the Sun as it is jerked around the center-of-mass of the solar system by orbiting planets - may be interested in this 2005 address to the U.S. Senate by Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Science:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Global_Climate_Change_Policy_and_Budget_Review.asp
Dr. Cicerone is a climatologist. To my surprise, he was the first speaker at the forum in Washington DC to celebrate the First Fifty (50) Years of the Space Science Board (1958-2008) on June 26, 2008.
As President of the National Academy of Sciences that reviews the budgets of federal research agencies like NASA, DOE, NOAA, NSF, etc, Dr. Cicerone is in a position to encourage research agencies to promote the web of scientific untruths that are wrecking our economy:
• Earth is bathed in a steady flow of heat from Hydrogen-fusion in the Hydrogen-filled Sun.
• Solar neutrinos from Hydrogen-fusion melt (oscillate) away before reaching detectors.
• Earth's climate is immune from cycles of solar activity (sunspots, flares, eruptions).
• Therefore CO2 from our economic engines caused global warming.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
omatumr@yahoo.com