A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Supernova event as a transition phase



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 2nd 18, 07:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

In 1990 I was working on stellar evolution and specifically the geometry of a pre-supernova star. In terms of the tug-of-war between density and volume in and surrounding the star, the geometric structure is based on two large externals rings and one smaller intersecting ring signifying not only a process but an outcome. In 1994, this image showed up -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_198..._1987A_HST.jpg

In short, a supernova event, at least for certain stars, may be a transition phase rather than the death of a star where a huge star loses mass, does not die but creates a solar system in the process. It is perhaps a wonderful idea that the planets in our own solar system, including our home planet, owe their existence to our parent Sun which went through a transition phase and released elements that make up our planet and even the material in our own bodies.

As for the mathematical/geometric reasoning behind this suggestion, the rules are entirely different than those which conclude that a star ends its productive existence at a supernova event.

  #2  
Old November 3rd 18, 08:25 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

The nonsense of the 'big bang' is based on a geometric absurdity of singularities which are way to express nothing in a long winded way but also extended to 'black hole' hype without giving physical considerations as to what is being asserted.

Infinite density/zero volume equates to infinite volume/zero density so although the former may entertain mathematicians who have spent 3 centuries doing a number on geometry, they hinder genuine geometric investigations such as pre-supernova and post-supernova evolution.

The mathematics of those stellar rings is founded on the principle that there is no lower or upper limit to geometry and physical considerations. I found that the non-periodic arithmetic of the Pi proportion extended to the more creative Phi proportion in terms of non-periodic tiling patterns which prohibit a disturbance between order and disorder for a loss of one is a loss of the other. The same happens with volume/density ratios so the drastic option of having one disappear at the expense of the other creates the mindnumbing physical conclusion that infinite volume/zero density has the same meaningless standing as infinite density/zero volume.

If people retreat from blanket 'big bang/black hole' conclusions and start to consider stellar processes in a more productive light then some semblance of physical considerations will return to research. People do sense that supernova events may be transitional phases in stellar evolution which may create a solar system rather than just an explosion where the star dies for this frees up so much information about galactic evolution.

  #3  
Old November 4th 18, 02:54 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:42:18 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

In short, a supernova event, at least for certain stars, may be a transition phase rather than the death of a star where a huge star loses mass, does not die but creates a solar system in the process.


Complete horse****, without a scintilla of evidence to support it. Nada.

You are completely delusional, Gerald.
  #4  
Old November 4th 18, 06:16 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

On Saturday, 3 November 2018 22:54:23 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:42:18 PM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

In short, a supernova event, at least for certain stars, may be a transition phase rather than the death of a star where a huge star loses mass, does not die but creates a solar system in the process.


Complete horse****, without a scintilla of evidence to support it. Nada.

You are completely delusional, Gerald.


Is there enough material in the solar system now to have come from a star large enough to have gone supernova?
  #5  
Old November 4th 18, 07:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 11:16:52 PM UTC-7, RichA asked:

Is there enough material in the solar system now to have come from a star large enough to have gone supernova?


Oh, there is little doubt that our solar system was created from matter produced in supernovae, but certainly not from just one! Even the biggest star known, which might be UY Scuti, is 'only' about 1700 times bigger than Sol, but only has about 10 times the mass. The theoretical mass limit for any star is about 100 times the mass of Sol, I think.

It is almost certain that most stars are formed in large collapsing molecular clouds like M-42 (Orion Nebula) or M-8 (Lagoon Nebula) or dozens and dozens of other similar nebula, where hundreds of stars and their associated planetary systems are eventually formed within those nebulae, those 'stellar nurseries', as star clusters. In fact, the only reason we can even see these nebulae is that they are being illuminated from by the earliest stars that have formed within! These star clusters are mostly short-lived and they eventually evaporate, with the member stars dissipating until there is no longer an association at all. Our Sun was presumably born in such a cluster about 5 billion years ago, but I don't think that any of our 'brother and sister' stars have been positively identified.

In any case, the remnants of a single supernova could never condense to form a single star, that violent end sends its stellar material far and wide in every direction, leaving behind either a neutron star or a black hole, depending on the star's initial mass. The molecular cloud from which Sol condensed was made of matter from many, many supernovae, all mixed up, along with a tremendous amount of primordial hydrogen, into a much bigger object.

To suggest that our Sun is a leftover nucleus of a former supernova is quite an ignorant claim, for anyone can simply pick up a book about stellar evolution and learn the basics in a short time and not have to resort to such wild speculation.

Not surprisingly, it is a lot more complicated than I have just outlined, but I believe I have presented the basic facts correctly. The concept is pretty easy to grasp... for most of us.
  #6  
Old November 4th 18, 08:02 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

This is where the difference between physics and the pseudo-science of astrophysics becomes acute insofar as researching stellar and solar system evolution in isolation meshes with the observed motion of supernova events as they too travel through space in their galactic orbital motion. I too enjoy the descriptions of solar evolution which create the heavier elements however the geometric absurdities of infinite density/zero volume attached to these supernova stars poisons the links to solar system evolution for stars that are already move in a coordinate motion around the galaxy.

Unlike others who just scream for the sake of it, I had worked on the concept of stellar evolution by way of density/volume ratios and the external rings surrounding stars in 1990 before the observation of sn1987a and the delineated rings which provide so much guidance of solar system evolution, at least as I see it.

The approach obviates the need for the chicken and egg scenarios as to whether stars or galaxies came first as stellar evolution transitioning to solar system evolution takes place in the normal background of material moving through the galaxy while playing out a process. It doesn't answer to anything greater than how solar systems emerge after a star is already moving through space so any appeal to larger sale notions of evolution takes second place at present.

The objections of people who profess physical consideration to infinite density/zero volume as anything other than a long winded way to describe nothing ,even if it is called big bang/black hole, don't have any role to play in actual stellar evolution nor even the unknown origin of galactic structure and motion.









  #7  
Old November 4th 18, 02:58 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:08:28 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

To suggest that our Sun is a leftover nucleus of a former supernova is quite an ignorant claim, for anyone can simply pick up a book about stellar evolution and learn the basics in a short time and not have to resort to such wild speculation.


You're suggesting somebody whose grasp of the most basic ideas about
how a planet rotates and orbits is several hundred years out of date
is going to pick up a book about stellar evolution?

Yeah... don't see that happening!
  #8  
Old November 4th 18, 05:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 2:58:36 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:08:28 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

To suggest that our Sun is a leftover nucleus of a former supernova is quite an ignorant claim, for anyone can simply pick up a book about stellar evolution and learn the basics in a short time and not have to resort to such wild speculation.


You're suggesting somebody whose grasp of the most basic ideas about
how a planet rotates and orbits is several hundred years out of date
is going to pick up a book about stellar evolution?

Yeah... don't see that happening!


I look for what is good about physics but astrophysics is a junk science based on assigning dynamical relevance to RA/Dec. To the wider population that means nothing however it actually doesn't take much to show how the day and rotation is anchored to noon and everything else is built upon that including the orbital period of the Earth around the Sun.

Due to rotation, you location exits the circle of illumination (sunrise) and re-enters it a number of hours later (sunset) with noon representing that a location is midway to those events. There is nothing from sunset to sunrise equivalent to noon hence the importance of this event in determining rotation.

I can see researchers try to put together a picture of the Sun's evolution and those of supernova stars but how much respect to these people deserve when they are busy bluffing and chanting voodoo around a silly mistake made in the late 17th century by equating rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion.

The astrophysics guys live off junkets and they are welcome to them but have no sense much less feel or spirit for astronomical things.
  #9  
Old November 6th 18, 01:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 6:58:36 AM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 00:08:28 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

To suggest that our Sun is a leftover nucleus of a former supernova is quite an ignorant claim, for anyone can simply pick up a book about stellar evolution and learn the basics in a short time and not have to resort to such wild speculation.


You're suggesting somebody whose grasp of the most basic ideas about
how a planet rotates and orbits is several hundred years out of date
is going to pick up a book about stellar evolution?

Yeah... don't see that happening!


Actually, I was responding to the fellow who asked a question... Gerald is incapable of learning, as we all know.
  #10  
Old November 6th 18, 06:43 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Supernova event as a transition phase

Now that the usual slogan chanters and bullied individuals had their say, back to the topic at hand.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...omalhaut_B.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomalh...oma lhaut.jpg

The issue of solar evolution in tandem with the motion of a star in its galactic orbital motion allows for the creation of a solar system from a transitional phases where a star loses intrinsic mass but creates a solar system in the process.

The offset Sun and a planet moving in a circular trajectory meshes in with the fact that the closer a planet is to the Sun the faster it moves (Venus moves faster than the Earth, Mercury moves faster than Venus). It brings into focus a top-down approach to planetary motion for variations in planetary orbital speeds is a consequence of the solar system's orbital motion around the galaxy.

People stuck in late 17th century experimental ideologies or their exotic 20th century counterparts wouldn't have a clue what is going on here but even in its infancy, a lot of information fits together in a coherent narrative, not just solar system evolution but that evolution within a galactic framework where that system is moving with great distances between stars.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA transition problems? Pat Flannery History 41 December 14th 08 05:15 AM
Light in Phase and then Out of Phase..... gravity jones Astronomy Misc 1 November 30th 06 01:06 PM
solid phase/neutron state phase transition Rudy von Massow Misc 0 January 28th 06 02:09 AM
NAVSPASUR transition Allen Thomson Policy 0 November 1st 04 10:31 PM
S@H to BOINC Transition Klaatu SETI 20 September 13th 03 03:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.