Galactic dust storm enters Solar System

FYI:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994021

Rudolph_X wrote:

FYI:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994021



Excuyse me but what the ****ing dust? The view to other stars is
***___UNOBSTRUCTED___***, and the next nearest stars (A Centauri, Sirius,
etc.) are several lightyears from here (for absolute morons: one lightyear
is about 9,450,000,000,000 kilometers) while the Sun is only ~150,000,000
kilometers away.

In article , "Mr. 4X" wrote:
Rudolph_X wrote:

FYI:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994021



Excuyse me but what the ****ing dust? The view to other stars is
***___UNOBSTRUCTED___***, and the next nearest stars (A Centauri, Sirius,
etc.) are several lightyears from here (for absolute morons: one lightyear
is about 9,450,000,000,000 kilometers) while the Sun is only ~150,000,000
kilometers away.

I'm sure your rant has put paid to the research of thousands of astronomers
who study the interstellar and inter-planetary medium. Thanks so much for
that..

What, in your opinion, contributes to extinction if it isn't dust? The
astronomical world holds its breath waiting for your answer.

(Tom Kerr) wrote:

In article , "Mr. 4X"
wrote:
Rudolph_X wrote:

FYI:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994021



Excuyse me but what the ****ing dust? The view to other stars is
***___UNOBSTRUCTED___***, and the next nearest stars (A Centauri,
Sirius, etc.) are several lightyears from here (for absolute morons:
one lightyear is about 9,450,000,000,000 kilometers) while the Sun is
only ~150,000,000 kilometers away.

I'm sure your rant has put paid to the research of thousands of
astronomers who study the interstellar and inter-planetary medium.
Thanks so much for that..

What, in your opinion, contributes to extinction if it isn't dust? The
astronomical world holds its breath waiting for your answer.

What extinction HERE? If our solar system would be in a dust cloud then 1.
light from other stars would be blocked (it isn't, except for those stars
which are indeed in a dust cloud) and 2. nearer parts of the cloud would be
illuminated by the Sun and would be visible at night

Mr. 4X wrote:

(Tom Kerr) wrote:


In article , "Mr. 4X"
wrote:

Rudolph_X wrote:


FYI:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994021



Excuyse me but what the ****ing dust? The view to other stars is
***___UNOBSTRUCTED___***, and the next nearest stars (A Centauri,
Sirius, etc.) are several lightyears from here (for absolute morons:
one lightyear is about 9,450,000,000,000 kilometers) while the Sun is
only ~150,000,000 kilometers away.

I'm sure your rant has put paid to the research of thousands of
astronomers who study the interstellar and inter-planetary medium.
Thanks so much for that..

What, in your opinion, contributes to extinction if it isn't dust? The
astronomical world holds its breath waiting for your answer.


What extinction HERE? If our solar system would be in a dust cloud then 1.
light from other stars would be blocked (it isn't, except for those stars
which are indeed in a dust cloud) and 2. nearer parts of the cloud would be
illuminated by the Sun and would be visible at night

Well, the Zodiacal Light shows that we are already in a dust cloud,
albeit local rather than interstellar ... the ZL is exactly what you
predict, a dust cloud illuminated by the sun and visible at night.
See for example http://astrho.astro.ufl.edu/nitecam.html showing the
ZL as seen from Rosemary Hill Observatory. Since the amount of IS
dust is expected to be many orders of magnitude less than that
causing the ZL detection of the IS cloud is far more difficult. In
addition, you have already been given references to papers about IS
extinction which results from the absorption of light from distant
stars by IS dust. What part of those papers did you not comprehend?

In article , "Mr. 4X" wrote:
(Tom Kerr) wrote:

In article , "Mr. 4X"
wrote:
Rudolph_X wrote:

FYI:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994021



Excuyse me but what the ****ing dust? The view to other stars is
***___UNOBSTRUCTED___***, and the next nearest stars (A Centauri,
Sirius, etc.) are several lightyears from here (for absolute morons:
one lightyear is about 9,450,000,000,000 kilometers) while the Sun is
only ~150,000,000 kilometers away.

I'm sure your rant has put paid to the research of thousands of
astronomers who study the interstellar and inter-planetary medium.
Thanks so much for that..

What, in your opinion, contributes to extinction if it isn't dust? The
astronomical world holds its breath waiting for your answer.

What extinction HERE? If our solar system would be in a dust cloud then 1.
light from other stars would be blocked (it isn't, except for those stars
which are indeed in a dust cloud) and 2. nearer parts of the cloud would be
illuminated by the Sun and would be visible at night

No, reddening is seen towards even relatively nearby stars, there's clear
evidence of dust even towards stars within 60 parsecs, and dust causes
extinction. These studies have used both reddening and polarization
observations, which agree quite well. The solar system is in a *relatively*
clear region, probably cleared out since we're in a "bubble" cleared out by
a supernova, but there is still dust present, even towards stars which
aren't in a localized dust cloud.

Once you go further out, there is always extinction from interstellar dust,
which is why astronomers have to take this into account, and why, for
instance, you don't use distant stars as calibrators for polarization
observations.

As John Oliver has already pointed out, there is also dust in the solar
system which *is* illuminated by the sun, i.e., the zodiacal light, and it
is visible at night, albeit only in the evening or morning.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:05:26 GMT, Tom Kerr wrote:

|The solar system is in a *relatively*
|clear region, probably cleared out since we're in a "bubble" cleared out by
|a supernova

How does a supernova clear dust from a region of space? I would've thought
they would create more dust than they drive out because of all the heavy
elements that they produce. And by what mechanism can they expel matter many
light years away from the explosion? Is the radiation pressure and push from
the injected matter really that strong?

In article , Darren Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:05:26 GMT, Tom Kerr wrote:

|The solar system is in a *relatively*
|clear region, probably cleared out since we're in a "bubble" cleared out by
|a supernova

How does a supernova clear dust from a region of space? I would've thought
they would create more dust than they drive out because of all the heavy
elements that they produce.

They can do this in more than one way, but as you say, may ultimately
produce dust. The problem is that in the region close to the supernova, dust
will actually be destroyed, mainly by shock waves, but also simply from the
intense radiation (dust is typically destroyed at a temperature of ~1500K,
and by shocks of 200 to 300 km/s IIRC). Small grains are also likely to be
charged and will interact with charged particles from a supernova (there
will be plenty!). This interaction can also push grains away.

Although a supernova does produce heavy elements, it does take a long time
for the elements to be incorporated into grains, you need to get into
conditions which are cold enough and relatively turbulent-free for grains to
survive.

And by what mechanism can they expel matter many
light years away from the explosion? Is the radiation pressure and push from
the injected matter really that strong?

Yes, although the further away a dust grain is, the less the effect will be.
You will still have shock waves several parsecs from the original supernova
which can destroy grains, or sweep them up (remember, in this case a
shock wave is like a pressure wave, it's actual particles that are causing
the pressure wave). To a lesser extent, the radiation pressure could still
drive partcles, although I couldn't tell you right now which processes are
dominant.

Just as a way of showing you a pretty picture, have a look at:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2003/16/

which shows the effects of a supernova that happened thousands of years ago.

Incidentally, I was a little inaccurate in what I said about the local
bubble. Although several astronomers believe it was caused by a supernova,
other competing theories include several supernovae occuring in a short
space of time. I'm not sure what the latest state of this research is.