Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Strange.

  1. #1 Strange. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    One of the oldest stars in the Universe (13.2 billion years old) is in our galaxy just 7,500 light years away.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901



    How come?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    What's the problem with this? There is still 500 million years between the Big Bang and the formation of that star (with large error bars attached). Everything fits. The metallicity is low, as expected for an old star. It also contains very heavy elements like uranium that can only be provided by a supernova of a previous generation of very massive stars.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Of course such a star could be created in half a billion years but I found it strange to find it in our galaxy and relatively close to us. Our galaxy is/was thought to be about ten billion years old.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    The U.S. is 236 years old, but many of our cities are much older. Some of the oldest cities are within a few hundred miles of where I live.
    Galaxies formed from dwarf galaxy mergers and those formed from mergers of clusters of stars. Of course, the stars came before this from clouds of gas like in the famous Eagle Nebula. As many as half of the stars in the Milky Way may be ancient, dim, red dwarf stars. Unlike the star in your link, they are difficult to image, but they may be even older than HE 1523-0901.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Strange. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    One of the oldest stars in the Universe (13.2 billion years old) is in our galaxy just 7,500 light years away.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901

    How come?
    Most if not all the Globular Clusters and the elliptical galaxies are the oldest stars and structures in our Universe.

    The astronomers calculated the GC's to be older than the BB untill the astronomers backed off because of the dispute of the star ages as against the BBT.

    Since the BBT is cosmogony, IMO, I agree with the astronomers .

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Arch2008. It is now generally considered that galaxies formed using super-massive black holes as "seeds". 70% of the stars in our galaxy are dwarf stars. However the star in question is not a dwarf star but a red metal poor giant. We would have to find a fair number of similar stars to believe it had been caught or had merged some time in the distant past.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Cosmo. As you said:


    New Scientist - 26 January 1991

    Astronomers have observed the oldest stars so far found in our Galaxy, the Milky Way. The stars are in the spherical 'halo' which surrounds the Milky Way. There were among the first to form in the Galaxy about 15 billion years ago.

    Timothy Beers of Michigan State University and his colleagues found the stars - number 70 in all - during the course of a large survey of the sky.


    AND:


    Inside Science Research - Physics News Update

    Number 270 (Story #2), May 9, 1996 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

    THE OLDEST STARS IN THE MILKY WAY ARE 15 BILLION YEARS OLD. An important adjunct to the debate over the Hubble constant is the notion that the universe cannot be younger than its oldest stars, which appear to be those in globular clusters, spherical clumps of hundreds of thousands or millions of stars found near and around our galaxy. Don VandenBerg of the University of Victoria (davb@uvvm.uvic.ca, 614-721-7739) uses the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope to view the ancient, metal-poor stars (they largely lack the elements heavier than helium which many younger stars inherit from earlier supernova explosions ) in globular clusters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    70% of the stars in our galaxy are dwarf stars. However the star in question is not a dwarf star but a red metal poor giant.
    AFAIK red giant is one of the final stages of the smaller stars. You'd expect one of the little ones to go red giant after a while. This one was small enough to take like twice as long as ours would.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Cosmo. As you said:


    New Scientist - 26 January 1991

    Astronomers have observed the oldest stars so far found in our Galaxy, the Milky Way. The stars are in the spherical 'halo' which surrounds the Milky Way. There were among the first to form in the Galaxy about 15 billion years ago.

    Timothy Beers of Michigan State University and his colleagues found the stars - number 70 in all - during the course of a large survey of the sky.


    AND:


    Inside Science Research - Physics News Update

    Number 270 (Story #2), May 9, 1996 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein

    THE OLDEST STARS IN THE MILKY WAY ARE 15 BILLION YEARS OLD. An important adjunct to the debate over the Hubble constant is the notion that the universe cannot be younger than its oldest stars, which appear to be those in globular clusters, spherical clumps of hundreds of thousands or millions of stars found near and around our galaxy. Don VandenBerg of the University of Victoria (davb@uvvm.uvic.ca, 614-721-7739) uses the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope to view the ancient, metal-poor stars (they largely lack the elements heavier than helium which many younger stars inherit from earlier supernova explosions ) in globular clusters.
    These quotes are quite old and outdated. The original publication of the second quote is here. Unfortunately, the document is not available to the public. But it is referred to in a later publication of the same person in a review on this topic. Here, it is clear that the uncertainties are very large and put the cited number of 15 Gyrs still within the limit of the commonly accepted age of the universe. A similar quote as yours from 1998 in Nature mentions "about 13 billion years" for the globular cluster age. Dating the age of stars is not an exact science, but strongly depends on theoretical models and precise observations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    That last sentence you quoted above can be applied to the WMAP data that set the age of the BBT.

    To be honest about this data being derived from the variations in the CMBR , sounds ludicrous to me.
    In the original data, this variation in temperature is only 7/100,000 of a Kelvin.

    I would give more credibility to the star ages.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I was not talking about the cosmological models, but the ones dealing with the evolution of stars. They are not that exact. Also, the techniques used to derive stellar ages are often ambiguous. Some phenomena that are interpreted in terms of age could also be affected by other contributions. You might notice the uncertainties involved in dating the globular clusters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Actually, Cyberia, it is now generally considered that the super-massive black holes also came about through mergers. Ancient clouds of gas collapsed forming massive 100+ solar mass stars that fused their cores to iron and went hypernova after a few million years. These stars imploded into black holes and the shock waves caused increased star formation in the remaining cloud. These “stellar nurseries” then merged with others as their black holes merged as well. Clusters of stars became dwarf galaxies and these too merged as their black holes merged. All of the early stars merged along with their local cluster into larger formations and eventually into galaxies like ours.
    I mentioned that the star in question is not a dwarf star. My point was that a large ancient star can be imaged more easily than the great many dim dwarf stars that may be even older. Finding a large ancient star is easier than finding smaller ancient stars, even though these stars are far less numerous. If you find an ancient star that is part of the Milky Way, then you have a star that is the result of a merger. How else would it be here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    If you find an ancient star that is part of the Milky Way, then you have a star that is the result of a merger. How else would it be here?
    Stellar mergers are a hot topic in astrophysics. Up to now, there is no convincing model that would be able to describe how and under what conditions this would happen. Even in the densest star clusters known, the stellar density is much too small to allow for a reasonable likelihood of star collisions. Even during the merging of two galaxies, there will be virtually no collisions amongst the stars.

    These giant stars are either a result of the normal evolution of dwarf stars being at the end of their lifetime or exceptional cases of very massive stars. But there is no convincing theory either that would be able to explain the formation of stars with masses above 20 solar masses or so. However, we know they exist, e.g. eta Carinae.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Actually, Cyberia, it is now generally considered that the super-massive black holes also came about through mergers.

    I could understand a black hole of several hundred solar masses formed by mergers but SMBH's go all the way up to 18,000,000,000 solar masses. It would take many times the age of the universe to make such a large black hole by such a method.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Or not... 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Here’s a link to Astronomy Magazine where the dynamics of massive star formation are discussed.
    http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7957

    So the theory is that massive stars form from the collision of protostars or directly from accretion. The explosive force of fusion won’t stop accretion until it overcomes the gravity of the mass of the cloud that is forming it.
    If you look at the dynamics of the stellar nursery, then you see that processes conspire to create not only fusion and gravity, but also turbulence from shock waves that cause different sizes in the clouds that eventually form stars.

    A lot of the hard data pieces to galaxy formation have only been collected in the last couple of years or less.

    Here is a description of how primordial clouds of DM and normal matter collapse:
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../9808072v1.pdf

    How globular clusters and Dwarf Galaxies merge:
    http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7515
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...810.2800v1.pdf

    Early massive Black Holes in merging galaxies and early galaxy evolution:
    http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=7529
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...810.2795v2.pdf

    Space Telescope Abell 901/902 Galaxy Evolution Survey (STAGES)
    http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/pdf/heic0802.pdf

    STAGES in detail:
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...811.3890v1.pdf

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...802.3908v1.pdf

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...801.1156v1.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dish
    Even during the merging of two galaxies, there will be virtually no collisions amongst the stars.
    I suggest you look at and study the Cartwheel Galaxy.
    Notice that the smaller galaxy that is distoted, has just passed through the CG to create its current appearance.

    My conclusion?
    The outer ring is the result of planet and asteroid collision with the stars that were explosions.
    The inner concentration of matter/gas, is the result of star collisions that were not explosions but just 'splatter of the star masses.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dish
    Even during the merging of two galaxies, there will be virtually no collisions amongst the stars.
    I suggest you look at and study the Cartwheel Galaxy.
    Notice that the smaller galaxy that is distoted, has just passed through the CG to create its current appearance.

    My conclusion?
    The outer ring is the result of planet and asteroid collision with the stars that were explosions.
    The inner concentration of matter/gas, is the result of star collisions that were not explosions but just 'splatter of the star masses.

    Cosmo
    No, it is all just stars moved out and inward by the gravitational interaction during the merger event of the galaxies. Often, a galactic merger induces a strong star formation period due to the compression of the interstellar medium. But there are basically no stellar collisions involved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dish
    Even during the merging of two galaxies, there will be virtually no collisions amongst the stars.
    Below is a photo of the Cartwheel Galaxy and the two smaller galaxies near it.

    http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/images/Cartwheel_Galaxy.jpg

    Notice that the small 'distorted' galaxy is the one that collided with the CG .

    The other small galaxy in this vicinity is intact.

    The CG has its structure transformed into 2 noticible rings.
    My opinion is that that outer ring is the result of an explosive contact that created the strong force to cause the outer ring.
    This indicates that planetary or astroidal impacts were involved to cause these explosions.
    These smaller objects contain 'oxides to cause these explosions that are similar to our Suns eruptions.

    The stars contacting would not cause an explosion because of their similar composition.
    So these contacts would just cause 'splatter' with no or very little force.
    So this barely detectable central ring is caused by just splatter.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    My explanation holds. There are basically no stellar collisions during a galaxy merger. I suggest you have a look at these websites:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu...r_ring_mm.html
    (3rd section)

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ASPC..209..255B

    http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/SSAnims/

    The last link provides animations of physical simulations of galaxy mergers. There are some especially dealing with the Cartwheel galaxy. Some time into the simulation labelled "Formation and evolution (no flyaround)" you will find a constellation showing the current stage of that Galaxy. It is not the final situation and the ring will disperse again. All these simulations only involve gravitational interaction of massive bodies. There is no further interaction like explosions or whatever involved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    I visited those 3 sites and it does not convince me the least bit.
    The 1st site does not even point out which of the smaller galaxies was involved in the collision.

    Quote
    It uses the words 'possibly' one of the smaller objects was involved.

    Wow, this is plainly obvious when you look at them both.
    One is plainly normal while the other is obviously distorted.

    Regarding Dark Matter, it is visible with x-rays in the central regions of some clusters. I wrote an explanation about DM. It is buried in the back pages.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    It is still true. What is your evidence that the ring of that galaxy is what you say it is? Here is another reference article mentioning that the chance of stellar collisions is negligible during the merging of galaxies.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09042/948178-115.stm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    It is still true. What is your evidence that the ring of that galaxy is what you say it is? Here is another reference article mentioning that the chance of stellar collisions is negligible during the merging of galaxies.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09042/948178-115.stm
    I disagree.
    My conclusion is that both galaxies are in an elliptical orbital approach rather than a direct collision.
    The approach velocities are only 60 kms/s.
    This is a snails pace considering the closeness of these two galaxies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    It is still true. What is your evidence that the ring of that galaxy is what you say it is? Here is another reference article mentioning that the chance of stellar collisions is negligible during the merging of galaxies.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09042/948178-115.stm
    I disagree.
    My conclusion is that both galaxies are in an elliptical orbital approach rather than a direct collision.
    The approach velocities are only 60 kms/s.
    This is a snails pace considering the closeness of these two galaxies.

    Cosmo
    How can you say that. Have you analysed the data? How much insight do you have into the underlying analysis?

    Okay. Then again, I urge you to deliver evidence for your interpretation. Just saying "it looks like ..." is not really proof, is it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    How can you say that. Have you analysed the data? How much insight do you have into the underlying analysis?

    Okay. Then again, I urge you to deliver evidence for your interpretation. Just saying "it looks like ..." is not really proof, is it.
    I have written an article about Dark Matter that is based on the solar eruptions and the source for these explosions.
    One very latge eruption was checked out by Solar Max, an xray satelite. It detedted the risidual remains of this eruption that was quoted as having a temperature of about 20 or 40 million K.
    It detected positive ions of iron, sufur and oxygen that had their outer electrons stripped away and blown out into space.
    So I promoted this as proof that these eruptions are chemical reactions from the oxides these elements had that were separated and the oxygen caused these massive eruptions.

    Current theory says these eruptions are the result of magnetic energy concentrations whatever that means. Of course I refuted that.

    So these eruptions from the various stars are really 'explosions'. And of course, there would be much more power driving these eruptions than just star collisions that would obviously not cause an explosion but like I say, just 'splatter'.
    So IMO, the outer rings in these galaxy collisions can only result from explosions.

    Those impacting objects in the Sun would all contain oxides that break down to cause these star eruptions.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Arch2008. It is now generally considered that galaxies formed using super-massive black holes as "seeds". 70% of the stars in our galaxy are dwarf stars. However the star in question is not a dwarf star but a red metal poor giant. We would have to find a fair number of similar stars to believe it had been caught or had merged some time in the distant past.
    Just because galaxies far away have a higher blackhole mass, and a lower mass of matter circling it does not infer a standard "creation" process. When it rains, is the rain caused by heating? You could say, well the water vapor got into the air due to heating, but what causes the "creation" of the drops. its the cooling process, and the water trying to prevent heatloss. The blackholes merely slow down cosmic "vapor" and it condenses as matter. That matter is eventually drawn into the supermassive black hole, and is changed back into energy, and passed on. The universe is nothing but a conduit for energy travel, and matter is nothing but a storage unit.

    You can make water boil by removing pressure. It will appear that there is heat being added to the water, but heat is being REMOVED from the water, but it causes the same effect. Our observable universe is the same way, pressure is being removed, and stars and planets are releasing their vibrational energy in the form of heat as the become more dense. Gravity is the condensing response of the matter under an energy loss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    I have written an article about Dark Matter that is based on the solar eruptions and the source for these explosions.
    One very latge eruption was checked out by Solar Max, an xray satelite. It detedted the risidual remains of this eruption that was quoted as having a temperature of about 20 or 40 million K.
    It detected positive ions of iron, sufur and oxygen that had their outer electrons stripped away and blown out into space.

    So I promoted this as proof that these eruptions are chemical reactions from the oxides these elements had that were separated and the oxygen caused these massive eruptions.

    Current theory says these eruptions are the result of magnetic energy concentrations whatever that means. Of course I refuted that.

    So these eruptions from the various stars are really 'explosions'. And of course, there would be much more power driving these eruptions than just star collisions that would obviously not cause an explosion but like I say, just 'splatter'.
    So IMO, the outer rings in these galaxy collisions can only result from explosions.

    Those impacting objects in the Sun would all contain oxides that break down to cause these star eruptions.

    Cosmo[/quote]

    But, can the energy measured in the eruption be accounted for by a 'chemical
    reaction' vs. a magnetic-mass collisional reaction? Which process best fits the energy curve of the eruption, from beginning to end. We all know that during any massive event the chemistry of the material involved will change (be ionised). ?

    I dont see how you dismiss the speed of the particles in motion, in either case.

    Just curious... Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by georger
    But, can the energy measured in the eruption be accounted for by a 'chemical
    reaction' vs. a magnetic-mass collisional reaction? Which process best fits the energy curve of the eruption, from beginning to end. We all know that during any massive event the chemistry of the material involved will change (be ionised). ?

    I dont see how you dismiss the speed of the particles in motion, in either case.

    Just curious... Thanks.
    Like I said, that solar eruption observered by Solar Max detecting those stripped ions is evidence enough to explain what the cause was. I do not see how the magnetic fields could cause such an explosion when we know that oxygen and hydrogen will go BOOM.

    Need I say more?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by georger
    But, can the energy measured in the eruption be accounted for by a 'chemical
    reaction' vs. a magnetic-mass collisional reaction? Which process best fits the energy curve of the eruption, from beginning to end. We all know that during any massive event the chemistry of the material involved will change (be ionised). ?

    I dont see how you dismiss the speed of the particles in motion, in either case.

    Just curious... Thanks.
    Like I said, that solar eruption observered by Solar Max detecting those stripped ions is evidence enough to explain what the cause was. I do not see how the magnetic fields could cause such an explosion when we know that oxygen and hydrogen will go BOOM.

    Need I say more?

    Cosmo
    Certainly. When they go "BOOM", it is a chemical reaction in which the electrons are involved. Since the sun is a plasma, all electrons are "stripped off" already, as you put it. So, no chemical reaction like you suggest could happen. However, if you suggest a thermonuclear reaction (fusion), also this is not possible, since the processes need very high temperatures that are only present in the solar core. And here, the fusion process is self regulating and stable, not explosive.

    Again, I urge you to show any evidence to your claim, that such an explosion could happen there.

    Ions in the solar atmosphere are a well known fact. It is no riddle. Even the sun itself consists of ions. The temperatures of the sun itself are high enough to ionise atoms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by georger
    But, can the energy measured in the eruption be accounted for by a 'chemical
    reaction' vs. a magnetic-mass collisional reaction? Which process best fits the energy curve of the eruption, from beginning to end. We all know that during any massive event the chemistry of the material involved will change (be ionised). ?

    I dont see how you dismiss the speed of the particles in motion, in either case.

    Just curious... Thanks.
    Like I said, that solar eruption observered by Solar Max detecting those stripped ions is evidence enough to explain what the cause was. I do not see how the magnetic fields could cause such an explosion when we know that oxygen and hydrogen will go BOOM.

    Need I say more?

    Cosmo
    {quote]
    Again, I urge you to show any evidence to your claim, that such an explosion could happen there.

    Ions in the solar atmosphere are a well known fact. It is no riddle. Even the sun itself consists of ions. The temperatures of the sun itself are high enough to ionise atoms.


    Dish:
    Check this out. Remarkable coincience, dont you think?

    http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phike...rojectile.html

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Again, I urge you to show any evidence to your claim, that such an explosion could happen there.

    Ions in the solar atmosphere are a well known fact. It is no riddle. Even the sun itself consists of ions. The temperatures of the sun itself are high enough to ionise atoms.
    Dish:
    Check this out. Remarkable coincience, dont you think?

    http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phike...rojectile.html
    I don't see the relevance here. Do you consider this evidence? I only see two comets plunging into the sun followed by a solar flare at a different position. Comets dive into the sun very often, and I doubt that each of that event is followed by a solar flare. Or do you have results of a statistical investigation that shows they do? I know these kind of movies of the SOHO satellite, and I never came across such a coincidence. Such flare, even bigger ones, also happen very often, and this without any comet in sight.

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery

    There is also a movie covering the event you are referring to, and you can see at the beginning of it, that outbursts have been going on for a while already, and the first "reaction" after the comet impact was on the other side of the sun. Also keep in mind that these movies are running on high speed and the two impacts are seperated by one day. From this I estimate that the outburst happened about two days after the impact - hardly a timescale that would justify to construct a chain of cause and effect. Would you mind describing, what you think, happened there and why you think it did so? Where is the link to the explosive chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen gas that triggered your reply?

    Just for your information and for a better understanding of the magnetic field argument. Here are two nice real pictures of magnetic field loops on the sun's surface.


    Such loops are the visible proof of magnetic fields of the sun. The loops catch the electrically charged plasma (ionised hydrogen mostly). When the magnetic field changes, these loops can break up, and the plasma is accelerated along the field lines and eventually released into space. This is what we observe during a flare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    These types of flares are caused by LOW velocity eruptions similar to the nature of gravity effects on the 'escape' velocity laws of math.

    The magnetic fields here are the result of the sripped positive ions that are left to create the sunspots.
    There are many small impacting bodies that can contribute to these type of magnetic arches.

    Anyway, that is my opinion.

    Cosmo

    '
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •