|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Supernovae | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5596 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
The purpose of this thread is to discuss anything related to related to supernovae.
Some of the interesting topics in my opinion are: 1) Discussing my views of SN(e)1987A which can be found here:http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/sn1987a/ 2) The distance of SN1993J 3) Justification of using type 1A supernovae as standard candles. 4) Is the crab nebula really a SN remnant? Feel free to discuss whatever else related to SNe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5596 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
As far as I know, all supernovae that have been observed in the past century, after peaking in its luminosity, gradually went dimmer. Thus the view that a supernova explosion indicates the death of a star is quite justified. For example, sn1987a, which in 1987 was brightest object in the LMC, is now hardly visible even with the most powerful telescopes.
However, the object which illuminates the crab nebula is a very powerful source, inspite of being 1000 years old. It is commonly believed that this object was first seen by Chinese astronomers 1000 years ago. My contention is that the Chinese witnessed a star birth, and not a star death. According to biblical chronology, stars were created on the 4th day, 6000 years ago. If the literal interpretation of the bible is correct, a star birth event observed 1000 years ago would imply that the star is 5000 light years away. Let me quote fromhttp://hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/bester.pdf "To summarize, our best estimate of the distance to the Crab Nebula is 5,600 light years, although we can say with certainty only that it lies between 4,000 and 7,000 light years."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4374 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
but that does not make it so.
We see the pulsar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4374 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
in a paragraph or so state your problems with convetional astronomy/astrophysics with points 2), 3) & 4) in your list.
thanks This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-01-2005 10:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
However, the object which illuminates the crab nebula is a very powerful source, inspite of being 1000 years old. It is commonly believed that this object was first seen by Chinese astronomers 1000 years ago. My contention is that the Chinese witnessed a star birth, and not a star death.
A neutron star birth? The star at the center of the Crab certainly isn't "very powerful" in the visible!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5596 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
I do not think that the crab pulsar is a rotating neutron star. Why should a rotating neutron star produce a magnetic field?
However, a rotating normal non-degenerate star can produce a magnetic field. Due to high temperatures, we would expect ionized atoms. The rotating ionized atoms are like a huge electrical current. From Ampere's law, an electric current produces a magnetic field. Rotating neutrons which are electrically neutral, shouldn't create a magnetic field. Added in edit:Does the fact that it isn't very powerful in the visible imply that it is a neutron star? For example, Sirius B is very powerful in the x-ray region, but it is not a neutron star. APOD: 2000 October 6 - X-Rays From Sirius B
This message has been edited by peaceharris, 04-02-2005 11:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5596 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
About points 2 and 3: I do not know how astronomers have come to their conclusions. The reason why I suggested these topics is merely to get find out the basis of their conclusions.
About the crab pulsar: We have observed sufficiently many SNe in the past century to convince us that pulsars are not from SN remnants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
According to biblical chronology, stars were created on the 4th day, 6000 years ago. If the literal interpretation of the bible is correct, a star birth event observed 1000 years ago would imply that the star is 5000 light years away. Huh? LOL Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4374 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
you are running way before you can walk here. I noticed your posts on another forum where I saw you asking the most basic of questions about even how stars can explode yet you came on here with a "paper" about positing 3 supernovae for SN1987A.
Also in starting this thread you list several topics hinting that you can refute several well known topics in supernovae physics and the like. How can you even begin to do this if you are asking, on another forum, rudimentary things like how can a star explode? Your post here that I am replying to again shows you have not possibly researched this suject at all - but in spite of this you claim to be able to set the astronophysics community straight. I really recommend you get a basic astrophysics/astronomy text and slowly work through it before writing papers that, to quote someone on the other forum descried that This is such a profound misinterpretation of the observational data and facts that I am a bit perturbed at being hooked into reading it. Think about what you said:
I do not think that the crab pulsar is a rotating neutron star. Why should a rotating neutron star produce a magnetic field? However, a rotating normal non-degenerate star can produce a magnetic field. Due to high temperatures, we would expect ionized atoms. The rotating ionized atoms are like a huge electrical current. From Ampere's law, an electric current produces a magnetic field. Rotating neutrons which are electrically neutral, shouldn't create a magnetic field. When a star collapses - what happens to it's magnetic field strength? Since flux will be basically conserved and the surface area has dropped by many orders of magnitude the field strength increases by this factor. Hence a neutron star is born with a huge field strength. A neutron star is not just neutrons, if it was it would decay rapidly. The electrical conductivity of a neutron star is quite high. Irrespective of this the initial field would take a long time to decay but since it is very condcutive and rotating fast a dynamo is probably operating anyway which makes the decay pretty slow at worst. Also Sirius B is extremely weak in X-rays compared to a neutron star. The Crab pulsar puts out about 100,000 times the solar luminosity - a lot of this is X-ray flux. Sirius B is about the luminosity of the Sun in total - most of which is UV flux. There is no comparison here. Your lack of basic knowledge is leading you to assumptions and extrapolations that are not only unwarranted they are foolish. As I said - learn to walk before attempting to run. This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 04-02-2005 02:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5596 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
Eta wrote, "A neutron star is not just neutrons... "
I did a google search, and found this document:http://www.nd.edu/~jina2/docs/events/phila/FWeber.pdf According to that document in the 1930's, people believed that neutron stars consisted of just neutrons. But the view in 2004 is that there is a layer of superconducting protons in the core.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4374 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
See what I mean. Your knowledge is lacking on even something this basic. Yet you've gone ahead and written a paper trashing all the observational efforts of professionals on SN1987A without basic knowledge. Don't you think the efforts of several hundreds (to a few thousand) professional researchers might have come up with your attempts if there was validity in them. Especially in light of the fact that the neutrinos from SN1987A are probably the most analysed small data set in the history of human science.
Nothing good is going to come of this. Astronomy/astrophysics is a wonderful rich subject but it takes time to master or even become conversant with. Jumping into criticism without a grounding in the basic physics is not the way to go about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Creationist Inactive Member |
Here's my input about that one supernova disproving the young universe:
First of all, I think that the in transit theory is false and un-Biblical, simply becuase God would not lie. There is a much better theory out there by a guy named Russel Humphreys(did I spell his name right?), and I think it explains why we see old supernove in a young universe. In his theory, the way that he explains how we can see light from distant stars is by saying that in the beginning the whole universe was a huge white hole and Earth was close to the center and the far away stuff was not. And as you know, time virtually stands still at the center of a white hole, and so the things farther out would have aged by billions of years and yet on Earth only a few days would have gone by, thus some stars would be able to go supernova in just a few days(within the creation week I assume?), or so it would seem from Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
In regards to that post I offer the following repost from:
http://EvC Forum: How do you decide what is True in the Bible? -->EvC Forum: How do you decide what is True in the Bible?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, Mr. Creationist.
Unfortunately, I am not well-versed enough in General Relativity to judge Humphrey's work. However, I think that there is a pretty good theological reason to find it unacceptable. An omnipotent god could have just "snapped her fingers" and had the universe just come into being as it is. No white holes, no changes in the speed of light, no accelerated nuclear decay, no red shifts. Humphrey's "solution" has the same exact problem as the "light in transit" idea -- God purposely, for no good reason, creates the universe with the appearance of age.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024