Author Topic: What is certain ...  (Read 10530 times)

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
What is certain ...
« on: July 29, 2012, 17:31:21 »
What is certain ... according to Main Stream Science and Scientists ...

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
What is certain ... the formation of the Earths Moon
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2012, 17:35:42 »


Quote

Scientists have proposed a fresh idea in the long-running debate about how the Moon was formed.

What is certain is that some sort of impact from another body freed material from the young Earth and the resulting debris coalesced into today's Moon.

But the exact details of the impactor's size and speed have remained debatable ...

What complicates that story is a number of observations of "isotopic compositions" - the ratios of naturally-occurring variants of some atoms - taken from the Earth and from lunar samples.

While the Moon has an iron core like Earth, it does not have the same fraction of iron - and computer models supporting the Theia impact idea show just the same thing.

However, the ratio of the Earth's and the Moon's oxygen isotopes is nearly identical, and not all scientists agree on how that may have come about.

Confounding the issue further, scientists reporting in Nature Geoscience in March said that a fresh analysis of lunar samples taken by the Apollo missions showed that the Moon and the Earth shared an uncannily similar isotope ratio of the metal titanium.

That, they said, gave weight to the idea that the Moon was somehow cleaved from the Earth itself ...

More analyses of different elements within lunar samples - and a great deal more computer simulations that result in a Moon like our own - will be needed to settle the debate.

Moon formation: Was it a 'hit and run' accident? | bbc.co.uk

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
What is certain ... Pulsars are ...
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2012, 19:46:17 »


Quote

WHAT ARE PULSARS? THE MYSTERIOUS 'BEACONS' OF SPACE

Pulsars form when a star becomes unstable and goes supernova - first of all compressing into a tiny space before exploding. The explosion sheds almost all the material of the star off into the vacuum of space at almost ten per cent the speed of light.

All that is left is a tiny, spinning core - the pulsar - which rotates at astonishing speed, perhaps just seconds.

As it spins, it sends off highly concentrated beams of radio-waves, which to a distant stationary observer (for instance on Earth) appear to flash on and off in a regular pattern - the pulse of the pulsar star.

pulsar J1838-0537

'The pulsar is, at 5,000 years of age, very young. It rotates about its own axis roughly seven times per second and its position in the sky is towards the Scutum constellation,' says Holger Pletsch, a scientist in Allen's group and lead author of the study which has now been published.

'After the discovery we were very surprised that the pulsar was initially only visible until September 2009. Then it seemed to suddenly disappear.'

Only a complex follow-up analysis enabled an international team led by Pletsch to solve the mystery of pulsar J1838-0537: it did not disappear, but experienced a sudden glitch after which it rotated 38 millionths of a Hertz faster than before.

'This difference may appear negligibly small, but it's the largest glitch ever measured for a pure gamma-ray pulsar.'

The precise cause of the glitches observed in many young pulsars is unknown.

Astronomers consider "star quakes" of the neutron star crust or interactions between the superfluid stellar interior and the crust to be possible explanations.

Cosmic 'hiccup' - or something more? Pulsar star changes its beat - leaving astronomers puzzled over space beacon | dailymail.co.uk

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
What is certain ...Planet Forming Dust Disc Surrounding Stars
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2012, 19:50:54 »

Quote

A disc of planet-forming dust around a distant star has disappeared unexpectedly, leaving astronomers scratching their heads and questioning current theories of how planets are formed. “It’s like the classic magician’s trick: Now you see it, now you don’t,” said astronomer Carl Melis of UC San Diego, who led the team that discovered the phenomenon.

“Only in this case, we’re talking about enough dust to fill an inner solar system and it is really gone.” The team has proposed several possible explanations for the disappearance, but “none are really compelling,” Melis said.
Planet-Forming Dust Disc Surrounding Distant Star Disappears | zen-haven.dk


Quote

The amount of dust around a star rises and falls over time. After a star forms, young planets are created from the leftover debris, known as a protoplanetary disk.

But the early life of a solar system is typically a time of violent collisions, so while much of the dust is initially swept up in the creation process, the disk is repopulated as large chunks of rock crash into one other. The disk around the 10-million-year-old star was thought to be in this second stage, with rocky objects constantly smashing together.

Where did the dust disappear to so quickly? Two different theories have been advanced to explain what caused the sudden loss ...  But there's still a nagging mystery. Neither of the two theories clearly fits the evidence obtained by observations of TYC 8241 2652 1.

"A perplexing thing about this discovery is that we don't have a really satisfactory explanation to address what happened around this star," Melis said.
Vanishing Dust Belt Around Star Baffles Scientists | space.com
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 20:59:56 by electrobleme »

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog



Quote

The Higgs boson-like particle whose discovery was announced on 4 July looks significantly more certain to exist.

The particle has been the subject of a decades-long hunt as the last missing piece of physics' Standard Model, explaining why matter has mass.

Now Higgs-hunting teams at the Large Hadron Collider report more than "5.8 sigma" levels of certainty it exists.

That equates to a one-in-300 million chance that the Higgs does not exist and the results are statistical flukes.

The range reported by CMS at the time reflects the fact that there are a number of ways to look for the Higgs boson, none of which can observe it directly.

However, many questions remain as to whether the particle is indeed the long-sought Higgs boson; the announcement was carefully phrased to describe a "Higgs-like" particle.

More analyses will be needed to ensure it fits neatly into the Standard Model - the most complete theory we have for particles and forces - as it currently exists.
Higgs boson results from LHC 'get even stronger' | bbc.co.uk

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
What is certain ... crystal formation and quasicrystals
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2012, 22:08:25 »
What is certain ... crystal formation and quasicrystals

Quote

DISCOVERY RAISES QUESTIONS

Schechtman's work on quasicrystals in the 1980s was initially treated with scepticism and derision by colleagues, who argued quasicrystals were not possible, but since then a variety of them have been made under controlled conditions in the lab.

The new samples were found in an area that does not have the extreme pressure needed to produce them, strengthening the case that they were brought to earth about 15,000 years ago by a meteorite that was formed 4.5 billion years ago at the beginning of the solar system, the researchers said.

Steinhardt says the discovery of natural quasicrystals will raise many questions for geologists.

"How did the quasicrystal form so perfectly inside a complex meteorite when we normally have to work hard in the laboratory to get anything as perfect?" said Steinhardt.

"At the moment, we are at the tip of the iceberg," he said.
Nobel prize-winning crystals fell to earth in meteorites | reuters.com
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 22:29:20 by electrobleme »

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1504
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
What is certain ... Star formation and ultramassive stars
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2012, 22:28:45 »

What is certain ... Star formation and ultramassive stars

Even though science didnt predict them ultramassive stars can be explained by a maths simulation. The best thing is that the Standard Theories are still safe so we can carry on with the theories that did not predict ultramassive stars because we have had it confirmed how stars are formed.

I for one would love to know how 2 stars collide, join up and carry on as a massive star.

Quote

In 2010 scientists discovered four 'monster' sized stars, with the heaviest more than 300 times as massive as our Sun. Despite their incredible luminosity, these exotic objects, located in the giant star cluster R136 in the nearby galaxy the Large Magellanic Cloud; have oddly so far been found nowhere else.

Until the discovery of these objects in 2010, observations of the Milky Way and other galaxies suggested that the upper limit for stars formed in the present day universe was about 150 times the mass of the Sun. This value represented a universal limit and appeared to apply wherever stars formed.

"Not only the upper mass limit but the whole mass ingredient of any newborn assembly of stars appears identical irrespective of the stellar birthplace", says Prof. Dr Pavel Kroupa of the University of Bonn, a co-author on the new paper. "The star birth process seems to be universal".

The newly discovered four ultrabright ultramassive stars in R136 are quite an exception to this widely accepted limit. Does their discovery mean that the star birth in the 30 Dor region is happening in a very different way from elsewhere in the universe? If so it would challenge the universal nature of the process of star formation, a fundamental premise of modern astronomy.

"Although extremely complicated physics is involved when two very massive stars collide, we still find it quite convincing that this explains the monster stars seen in the Tarantula", says Banerjee.

"This helps us relax", concludes Kroupa, "Because the collisions mean that the ultramassive stars are a lot easier to explain. The universality of star formation prevails after all."
| ras.org.uk