PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Spitzer Shows The Pinwheel Nebula



Fraser
2004-Jun-02, 05:33 PM
SUMMARY: The latest image released from the Spitzer Space Telescope is of galaxy M33, also known as the Pinwheel Galaxy. It's a very familiar object to visible astronomy, but in Spitzer's infrared gaze, the galaxy reveals some of its "coolest" features; clouds of dust created in novae and supernovae, and then blown around the galaxy in winds from giant stars. M33 is 50,000 light years across and nearly perfectly face on, so you can see right to its centre - a place obscured by gas and dust in our own Milky Way.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-02, 05:41 PM
Thanks, Fraser, for another interesting find from the Spitzer Space Telescope.

Many measurements since 1960 have shown that "clouds of dust" created in a supernova explosion 5 billion years ago were right here at the birth of the Solar System.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Littlemews
2004-Jun-02, 05:59 PM
interseting story...

John L
2004-Jun-02, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jun 2 2004, 12:41 PM
Many measurements since 1960 have shown that "clouds of dust" created in a supernova explosion 5 billion years ago were right here at the birth of the Solar System.
Exactly! That dust from the previous supernovas mixed with the hydrogen cloud that formed our sun and seeded it with the elements that formed the planets.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-03, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by John L+Jun 2 2004, 07:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John L &#064; Jun 2 2004, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Jun 2 2004, 12:41 PM
Many measurements since 1960 have shown that "clouds of dust" created in a supernova explosion 5 billion years ago were right here at the birth of the Solar System.
Exactly&#33; That dust from the previous supernovas mixed with the hydrogen cloud that formed our sun and seeded it with the elements that formed the planets. [/b][/quote]
John,

Experimental measurements show that the supernova ejecta was NOT mixed with an imaginary hydrogen cloud that formed our sun, nor

un-mixed from all the other elements in the hydrogen cloud to form different classes of meteorites and planets.

-1.- Measurements of parent/daughter ratios of short-lived isotopes show there was not time for the mixing and separation to occur.

-1.- Measurements of stable isotopes in meteorites show that the imagined mixing and un-mixing did not occur.

Isotopes of the same element, made in different parts of the supernova, are un-mixed in meteorites.

Massive meteorites made of Nickel-Iron from the supernova core are an extreme example:

Measurements at the University of Tokyo and Harvard University show that isotopes of Molybdenum made by the s-process, the r-process, and the p-process were never completely mixed in massive iron meteorites.

So the problem is this:

1. Fe/Ni from the SN core ->

2. Mixes with all other elements in a hydrogen cloud ->

3. Separates from all other elements ->

4. Forms massive iron objects without mixing Mo isotopes?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Duane
2004-Jun-03, 05:14 PM
Hmm, lets look at Dr Manuels claim. He says the sun has an iron core which arose from a supernova explosion.

He cannot explain how the core overcame the escape velocity of the material it ejected to begin reaccreting it. He uses neutrino flux, which is later explained, to support the idea, and dismisses findings which explained the original paradox. He claims the Earth has an undifferentiated solid lower mantle, and ignores research showing the mantle is not only melted throughout, it recycles. He cannot account for the current mass of the sun. He cannot explain how the sun could burn steadily for 5 billion years, nor explain why the sun is slowly heating up. He cannot explain how material accreting on the the "neutron core" would not become part of the degenerate shell. He cannot explain the means by which the iron star could shine, nor can he explain the the opacity problem which lead to the hypothesis that the sun burned hydrogen in the first place. He ignores literally stacks of research papers which explain the diverse isotopes found in meteorites, including several lines of research by different disiplines of science suggesting more than one incident of material injection into the pre-solar, forming and post-solar enviroment. He cannot explain how a small mass neutron star could form, nor can he explain how a star that requires the Chadrasekhar limit to collapse, could shed up to 4/5&#39;s of its mass. He cannot point to one single instance anywhere in the galaxy where a neutron star is accreting material, despite the literally hundreds of star-forming regions all around us. When questioned, he hides behind the lists and graphs he repeatedly (15 times? 20? more?) puts up to somehow support his now thoroughly debunked premise and ignores the questions.

Hmm, something fishy about that claim.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-03, 11:32 PM
Thanks, Duane, for your explanation of how:

1. Fe/Ni from the core of a supernova ->

2. Mixes with all other elements in a hydrogen cloud ->

3. Separates from all other elements ->

4. Forms massive iron meteorites, without mixing Mo isotopes.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om