|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Deep Impact" mission; designed to deceive?
If this guy is right, it sounds alot like how they conduct global
warming science. -Rich http://www.physorg.com/news4899.html The July 4 "comet shot" is expected to yield data dating back 4.5 billion years, when most scientists believe the solar system was formed out of an interstellar cloud of gas and dust. Since the frozen interiors of comets are thought to possess information from that time, it is believed we can learn more about the original cloud of gas and dust by sending a projectile into the core of a passing comet. Not so, says Dr. Oliver Manuel, professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. “Comets travel in and out of the solar system, toward the sun and away from the sun, losing and gaining material,” Manuel explains. “But the building blocks that made the outer parts of the solar system are different from the building blocks that made the inner solar system.” For the record, Manuel believes the sun was born in a catastrophic supernova explosion and not in a slowly evolving cloud of space stuff. According to Manuel’s model, heavy elements from the interior of the supernova created the rocky planets and the sun; and the lighter elements near the surface of the supernova created the outer, gaseous planets. Therefore, Manuel says, data from Deep Impact won't be useful. “The comet data will show a mixture of material from the inner and outer layers of the supernova, but it won't tell us anything about the beginnings of the solar system,” Manuel says. “NASA still says the solar system was born in an interstellar cloud and that the sun is a ball of hydrogen with a well-behaved hydrogen fusion reactor in the middle of it. But it’s not, and that will color the data from Deep Impact. It will appear to confirm a flawed theory about the birth of the solar system.” Manuel says the sun is the remains of a supernova, and that it has a neutron star at its core. According to a paper he presented last week at a nuclear research facility in Dubna, Russia, neutron emissions represent the greatest power source ever known, triggering hydrogen fusion in the sun, generating an enormous magnetic field, explaining phenomena like solar flares and causing climate change on earth. Findings published by other researchers last year in Science magazine (May 21, 2004) suggested that, in fact, a nearby supernova probably did contribute material (Iron-60) to an ambiguous cloud that formed the solar system. What Manuel reported 27 years earlier in Science (Jan. 14, 1977) is that the supernova blast created the entire solar system and all of its iron. “So Deep Impact is NASA’s big cosmic fireworks show for the Fourth of July, but they’re going to end up using smoke and mirrors to help validate this theory about a big cloud of dust that supposedly made the solar system,” Manuel says. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"RichA" wrote in message ... If this guy is right, it sounds alot like how they conduct global warming science. -Rich The hell they do!. Global warming science is grounded on evidence. I don't expect a simpleton like you to undestand much about how any science is conducted "Rich". Too date there is no evidence about the early solar system. Only theory and what logically makes sense. The theory of supernova's is backed by observation via the HST mostly. The idea that a G class star like the sun came into existence as a result of a supernova and actually harbours a neutron star at it's core doesn't jive with conventional view and physics. For one thing, a supernova blast launches material into interstellar space at millions of km's per hour you can't get beyond that. The material becomes lost...IT DON'T HANG AROUND! http://www.physorg.com/news4899.html The July 4 "comet shot" is expected to yield data dating back 4.5 billion years, when most scientists believe the solar system was formed out of an interstellar cloud of gas and dust. Since the frozen interiors of comets are thought to possess information from that time, it is believed we can learn more about the original cloud of gas and dust by sending a projectile into the core of a passing comet. Not so, says Dr. Oliver Manuel, professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. "Comets travel in and out of the solar system, toward the sun and away from the sun, losing and gaining material," Manuel explains. "But the building blocks that made the outer parts of the solar system are different from the building blocks that made the inner solar system." For the record, Manuel believes the sun was born in a catastrophic supernova explosion and not in a slowly evolving cloud of space stuff. According to Manuel's model, heavy elements from the interior of the supernova created the rocky planets and the sun; and the lighter elements near the surface of the supernova created the outer, gaseous planets. Therefore, Manuel says, data from Deep Impact won't be useful. "The comet data will show a mixture of material from the inner and outer layers of the supernova, but it won't tell us anything about the beginnings of the solar system," Manuel says. "NASA still says the solar system was born in an interstellar cloud and that the sun is a ball of hydrogen with a well-behaved hydrogen fusion reactor in the middle of it. But it's not, and that will color the data from Deep Impact. It will appear to confirm a flawed theory about the birth of the solar system." Manuel says the sun is the remains of a supernova, and that it has a neutron star at its core. According to a paper he presented last week at a nuclear research facility in Dubna, Russia, neutron emissions represent the greatest power source ever known, triggering hydrogen fusion in the sun, generating an enormous magnetic field, explaining phenomena like solar flares and causing climate change on earth. Findings published by other researchers last year in Science magazine (May 21, 2004) suggested that, in fact, a nearby supernova probably did contribute material (Iron-60) to an ambiguous cloud that formed the solar system. What Manuel reported 27 years earlier in Science (Jan. 14, 1977) is that the supernova blast created the entire solar system and all of its iron. "So Deep Impact is NASA's big cosmic fireworks show for the Fourth of July, but they're going to end up using smoke and mirrors to help validate this theory about a big cloud of dust that supposedly made the solar system," Manuel says. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
To Roc
That is incorrect for material exists in proximity to a Supernova star before and after the event occurs. The rings of SN1987A and the material that constitutes them existed before the supernova event and the outgoing material from the explosion highlights that they all the material is not lost and it may be that a supernova event is not the end for a star but the beginning of a different phase. http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/pic/sn1987a.gif It may be that our solar system still retains a trace of a different phase of our Sun's evolutionary process which give rise to the periodic elements in the form of things we know as belts or clouds for while the stellar emergence from nebula is fine,the composition of heavier elements from stellar evolutionary process must be identified with a supernova event or some similar process .Like the guys who went searching for a volcano in Yellowstone only to discover than they were standing in a giant caldera,it make be that the antecent supernova star and the abundant elements which make life possible is our own Sun. http://www.solarviews.com/browse/comet/kuiper3.jpg Pity that people can't make the necessary compromises to seperate evolutionary process and the inventive notions to form a link in the explanatory link in a chain for a useless and overblown 'Theory of Everything'.Most people enjoy natural phenomena in seeing how things mesh and seperate.How in the hell are they expected to enjoy every point is the 'valid center of the universe' as a means to explain cosmological evoltion but then again,you people like warping things and give clocks magic properties because the theorists say so. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Global warming science is grounded on evidence." What evidence? Some
silly-science hacks with Gov. grants? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Global warming is a fact. Human cause is a fact. Ultimate efects are
unknown. "RichA" wrote in message ... If this guy is right, it sounds alot like how they conduct global warming science. -Rich http://www.physorg.com/news4899.html The July 4 "comet shot" is expected to yield data dating back 4.5 billion years, when most scientists believe the solar system was formed out of an interstellar cloud of gas and dust. Since the frozen interiors of comets are thought to possess information from that time, it is believed we can learn more about the original cloud of gas and dust by sending a projectile into the core of a passing comet. Not so, says Dr. Oliver Manuel, professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. "Comets travel in and out of the solar system, toward the sun and away from the sun, losing and gaining material," Manuel explains. "But the building blocks that made the outer parts of the solar system are different from the building blocks that made the inner solar system." For the record, Manuel believes the sun was born in a catastrophic supernova explosion and not in a slowly evolving cloud of space stuff. According to Manuel's model, heavy elements from the interior of the supernova created the rocky planets and the sun; and the lighter elements near the surface of the supernova created the outer, gaseous planets. Therefore, Manuel says, data from Deep Impact won't be useful. "The comet data will show a mixture of material from the inner and outer layers of the supernova, but it won't tell us anything about the beginnings of the solar system," Manuel says. "NASA still says the solar system was born in an interstellar cloud and that the sun is a ball of hydrogen with a well-behaved hydrogen fusion reactor in the middle of it. But it's not, and that will color the data from Deep Impact. It will appear to confirm a flawed theory about the birth of the solar system." Manuel says the sun is the remains of a supernova, and that it has a neutron star at its core. According to a paper he presented last week at a nuclear research facility in Dubna, Russia, neutron emissions represent the greatest power source ever known, triggering hydrogen fusion in the sun, generating an enormous magnetic field, explaining phenomena like solar flares and causing climate change on earth. Findings published by other researchers last year in Science magazine (May 21, 2004) suggested that, in fact, a nearby supernova probably did contribute material (Iron-60) to an ambiguous cloud that formed the solar system. What Manuel reported 27 years earlier in Science (Jan. 14, 1977) is that the supernova blast created the entire solar system and all of its iron. "So Deep Impact is NASA's big cosmic fireworks show for the Fourth of July, but they're going to end up using smoke and mirrors to help validate this theory about a big cloud of dust that supposedly made the solar system," Manuel says. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think human is a FACT as yet though there is strong evidence. It's
funny how the "facts" are influenced by a person's politics. Doink "Thomas Swanson" wrote in message .. . Global warming is a fact. Human cause is a fact. Ultimate efects are unknown. "RichA" wrote in message ... If this guy is right, it sounds alot like how they conduct global warming science. -Rich http://www.physorg.com/news4899.html The July 4 "comet shot" is expected to yield data dating back 4.5 billion years, when most scientists believe the solar system was formed out of an interstellar cloud of gas and dust. Since the frozen interiors of comets are thought to possess information from that time, it is believed we can learn more about the original cloud of gas and dust by sending a projectile into the core of a passing comet. Not so, says Dr. Oliver Manuel, professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR. "Comets travel in and out of the solar system, toward the sun and away from the sun, losing and gaining material," Manuel explains. "But the building blocks that made the outer parts of the solar system are different from the building blocks that made the inner solar system." For the record, Manuel believes the sun was born in a catastrophic supernova explosion and not in a slowly evolving cloud of space stuff. According to Manuel's model, heavy elements from the interior of the supernova created the rocky planets and the sun; and the lighter elements near the surface of the supernova created the outer, gaseous planets. Therefore, Manuel says, data from Deep Impact won't be useful. "The comet data will show a mixture of material from the inner and outer layers of the supernova, but it won't tell us anything about the beginnings of the solar system," Manuel says. "NASA still says the solar system was born in an interstellar cloud and that the sun is a ball of hydrogen with a well-behaved hydrogen fusion reactor in the middle of it. But it's not, and that will color the data from Deep Impact. It will appear to confirm a flawed theory about the birth of the solar system." Manuel says the sun is the remains of a supernova, and that it has a neutron star at its core. According to a paper he presented last week at a nuclear research facility in Dubna, Russia, neutron emissions represent the greatest power source ever known, triggering hydrogen fusion in the sun, generating an enormous magnetic field, explaining phenomena like solar flares and causing climate change on earth. Findings published by other researchers last year in Science magazine (May 21, 2004) suggested that, in fact, a nearby supernova probably did contribute material (Iron-60) to an ambiguous cloud that formed the solar system. What Manuel reported 27 years earlier in Science (Jan. 14, 1977) is that the supernova blast created the entire solar system and all of its iron. "So Deep Impact is NASA's big cosmic fireworks show for the Fourth of July, but they're going to end up using smoke and mirrors to help validate this theory about a big cloud of dust that supposedly made the solar system," Manuel says. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Swanson wrote:
Global warming is a fact. It's happening on Mars, too (based on smaller ice caps each year for the past 40+ years or so). So unless you concede Martians are driving their SUVs with wild abandon, "something else" must be the cause (perhaps the Sun?). I'd say "ocean warming" is more a fact than "global warming" if one looks at actual data. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 13:48:47 -0700, wrote: Thomas Swanson wrote: Global warming is a fact. It's happening on Mars, too (based on smaller ice caps each year for the past 40+ years or so). So unless you concede Martians are driving their SUVs with wild abandon, "something else" must be the cause (perhaps the Sun?). I'd say "ocean warming" is more a fact than "global warming" if one looks at actual data. Global warming supporters don't believe in data, they believe in dogma. A dogmatic statement. Global warming is a factaccepted by the scientific community. The cause is what's being debated, and unfortunately it's become so politicized that objective discussion is almost impossible. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:49:37 GMT, Bob Schmall
wrote: RichA wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 13:48:47 -0700, wrote: Thomas Swanson wrote: Global warming is a fact. It's happening on Mars, too (based on smaller ice caps each year for the past 40+ years or so). So unless you concede Martians are driving their SUVs with wild abandon, "something else" must be the cause (perhaps the Sun?). I'd say "ocean warming" is more a fact than "global warming" if one looks at actual data. Global warming supporters don't believe in data, they believe in dogma. A dogmatic statement. Global warming is a factaccepted by the scientific community. The cause is what's being debated, and unfortunately it's become so politicized that objective discussion is almost impossible. It hasn't become politicized, it was designed from day-one to BE politicized. How else can you explain why 2/3 of the planet are exempt from participating, principally, Indian and China whose rapidly industrializing economies are producing more pollutants than the U.S. and Western Europe and will produce more in the future? Kyoto is a FRUAD and global warming is a mechanism to shift wealth and jobs from the West to the "have nots." -Rich |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Observe the Deep Impact Spacecraft Close In On Comet Tempel 1 | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | February 11th 05 02:27 AM |
Deep Impact Launched and Flying Toward Date With a Comet | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 13th 05 01:13 AM |
Space Shuttle Should Conduct Final Servicing Mission To Hubble SpaceTelescope (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 9th 04 01:27 AM |
NASA PDF Mercury, Gemini, Apollo reports free online | Rusty Barton | History | 81 | October 3rd 04 05:33 PM |
Space Calendar - August 27, 2004 | Ron | History | 14 | August 30th 04 11:09 PM |