Slashdot Mirror


Supernova 1987A Decoded

bluevector writes "Electric Universe News is reporting that scientists claim to have proof that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star' and not the result of giant stars undergoing gravitational collapse and subsequent explosion after having spent all of their nuclear fuel as previously thought."

27 of 629 comments (clear)

  1. Wanted for questioning by carterhawk001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If anyone knows the where abouts of one Tolian Soran UFP Security is looking for him in connection with the artificial supernova 1987A. Soran is considered armed and dangerous and may be responsible for previous supernova, which can only be caused by external electrical forces directed at stars, and not their own gravity.

  2. The Article is a troll by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Informative

    Electric Universe is a well-known crackpot site, built on the most absurd pseudoscience. They're the same outfit that predicted a large explosion when Deep Impact hit Tempel 1.

    As usual, the /. editors display their utter inability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Idiots.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  3. Not even a LINK? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the submitter didn't bother including one, and the editor didn't do any better, here's one:

    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxn z1

    It's already running so slow it's useless. What I managed to get screams crackpot:

    24 August 2005
    Supernova 1987A Decoded

    13 July 2005
    Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact

    03 July 2005
    The Deep Impact of Comet Theory

    26 March 2005
    The Dragon Storm

    08 February 2005
    Columbia downed by Megalightning

    05 February 2005
    Saturn's Strange Hot Spot Explained

    30 January 2005
    Titan - A Rosetta Stone for early Earth?

    25 December 2004
    Megalightning at Saturn

    25 November 2004
    Titan puzzles scientists

    27 October 2004
    The True State of the Universe

  4. Site seems down; here's that article's text by a.different.perspect · · Score: 5, Informative

    24 August 2005 Supernova 1987A Decoded

    Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Magellanic cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way, and only 169,000 light years from Earth. Close observation since 1987 has now provided proof that supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star.

    >> IMAGE CAPTION: The enigmatic and beautiful structure of SN1987A with its three axial rings. The brightening of the equatorial ring is obvious. The two bright stars are just in the field of view and are not associated with the supernova.

    A supernova is one of the most energetic events witnessed in the universe. The accepted explanation is that it occurs at the end of a star's lifetime, or red giant stage, when the star's nuclear fuel is exhausted. There is no more release of nuclear energy in the core so the huge star collapses in on itself. If sufficiently massive, the imploding layers of the star are thought to rebound when they hit the core, resulting in an explosion, and the blast wave ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The bright equatorial ring is caused by the collision of exploded matter from the star with the remnants of an earlier stellar "wind." The two faint rings are a problem. The best that theorists have been able to manage is to postulate some kind of rotating beam from an assumed supernova remnant, sweeping and lighting up a shell of gas expelled at an earlier epoch. The ad hoc nature of these explanations is obvious.

    The detection of a pulsar remnant after some supernovae is explained by the implosion of the stellar core to produce a neutron star. Pulsars emit bursts of radiation up to thousands of times a second. It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse). Commonsense suggests that this mechanical model is wrong when some pulsars rev beyond the redline, even for such a bizarre object.

    A recent example of conventional thinking can be seen on the Chandra website. On August 17, a news story was posted: Supernova 1987A: Fast Forward to the Past.

    Recent Chandra observations have revealed new details about the fiery ring surrounding the stellar explosion that produced Supernova 1987A. The data give insight into the behavior of the doomed star in the years before it exploded, and indicate that the predicted spectacular brightening of the circumstellar ring has begun.. The site of the explosion was traced to the location of a blue supergiant star called Sanduleak -69Â 202 (SK -69 for short) that had a mass estimated at approximately 20 Suns.

    Subsequent optical, ultraviolet and X-ray observations have enabled astronomers to piece together the following scenario for SK -69: about ten million years ago the star formed out of a dark, dense, cloud of dust and gas; roughly a million years ago, the star lost most of its outer layers in a slowly moving stellar wind that formed a vast cloud of gas around it; before the star exploded, a high-speed wind blowing off its hot surface carved out a cavity in the cool gas cloud.

    The intense flash of ultraviolet light from the supernova illuminated the edge of this cavity to produce the bright ring seen by the Hubble Space Telescope. In the meantime the supernova explosion sent a shock wave rumbling through the cavity. In 1999, Chandra imaged this shock wave, and astronomers have waited expectantly for the shock wave to hit the edge of the cavity, where it would encounter the much denser gas deposited by the red supergiant wind, and produce a dramatic increase in X-radiation.

    The latest data from Chandra and the Hubble Space Telescope indicate that this much-anticipated event has begun. Optical hot-spots now encircle the ring like a necklace of incandescent diamonds. The Chandra image reveals multimillion-degree gas at the location

    1. Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text by Tingulli+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This article is pure crap. I, as an High-energy astronomer, will never give credito to an article stating that "It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse)." Pulsars that are the relic of supernovae (like the crab pulsar) are RADIO pulsars, meaning that they are mainly detected as pulsating sources at radio wavelengths. It is indeed true that most of them do emit X-rays (the crab pulsar is -again- a beautiful example), but a statement like the one in the article is completely misleading. I look forward a peer reviewed version of this article to come up on a serious journal. Until then, this is just crap (after all, we're on /., right?)

  5. Electric theory has already been discussed on /. by Chryana · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/0 3/1246254&tid=160

    Summary of the previous discussion: the electric universe theory has as much scientific support as geocentrism.

    This should not be news on slashdot I suppose, but since it is, I guess we're going to spend some time bash.. I mean challenging the electric universe theory once more...

  6. Re:Can I get a link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The news is almost certainly at http://www.holoscience.com/, which is currently Slashdotted in spite of there being no link. Electric Universe proponents are generally considered to be crackpots by the wider astronomy community, but who knows - they may be on to something.

  7. Hah! They got it wrong! by serutan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fools! They fail to understand that a supernova is caused by shock waves emitted when the turtle at the bottom of the stack of turtles that make up the universe is squashed by all the turtles above it. As new turtles come into being at the top of the stack, their weight eventually crushes the bottom turtle, causing the whole stack to drop jarringly. The resulting compression wave is felt by all the turtles, and sometimes causes the familiar flash of light mistakenly interpreted as a stellar explosion. Stars can't "explode" because they are merely holes in the firmament. Whoever heard of a hole exploding! Such foolishness!

    1. Re:Hah! They got it wrong! by Scarblac · · Score: 5, Funny

      when the turtle at the bottom of the stack of turtles that make up the universe

      Dude, there is no bottom. It's turtles all the way down.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  8. Re:Parent is a troll by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know if these electric universe guys are right or wrong, but it seems VERY scientific to me to come up with new theories about how things work...

    I have a new theory: jim_v2000 is an ignorant fuckwit who is incapable of assessing the validity of pseudoscientic claims. There you have it, folks: science in action.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  9. Re:Parent is a troll by professionalfurryele · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, no, it's psuedoscience. Thier explanation of the behaviour of comets shape simply does not match reality. Nor does thier explanation of the solar wind (which they claim is positively charged if I recall, it is infact electrically neutral).
    Thier predictions about Deep Impact were so vaguo they would make a astrology cringe, so to claim they got that right is absurd.
    These people don't open themselves up to peer review. We aren't talking about a bunch of little Einstiens the world wont accept. These are genuine crackpots.

  10. Some handy links debunking this crap by ikewillis · · Score: 5, Informative
  11. Does anyone filter science posts for credibility? by br4v3_s1r_r0b1n · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is crazy talk. I studied gravitational collapse TypeII supernova explosions in grad school. It's not an electrical phenomenon: it's a gravitational bounce outward from the solid (neutron) core after fusion peters out at Iron burning. From there, for sufficiently massive stars, you either get a neutron star or a black hole. Hans Bethe got the Nobel for explaining process the energy release(~10^51 erg). Aside from some of the 3d fluid dynamics of collapse and ejecta composition, the important parts of the process are fairly well understood.

  12. Re:Your link is the bible by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Funny

    200 years ago, most of the USA was filled with people who could not read or write ... And they believed in GOD.

    Exactly. The uneducated, stupid people believed in god. You put it perfectly.

  13. Slow news day? by RocketRainbow · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm impressed. The link to The Onion that was marked Google instead of Humour was a bit of a low point for Slashdot. But a story about a bunch of cranks that doesn't even include a link is a whole new record. Are you guys having a competition?

    Tomorrow's Stupid News article: RocketRainbow writes about a staggering discovery: "Some guy in a bar told me that he made a time machine". The implications are astonishing.

    --
    *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
  14. Re:Your link is the bible by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.

    Actually, real scientists have used this event to prove a hypothesis. In 1999, Chandra X-Ray center suggested that the shape of the rings resulted from a cavity, caused by the explosion, in the dust and gas surrounding the star. They predicted that the supernova explosion would produce a shock wave which would hit the edges of the cavity and produce a dramatic increase in X-Rays. This is happening as predicted. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/05082 1234547.htm

    You see, that's the difference between science and superstition. Science makes predictions which can be tested. That's why it sometimes changes. Superstition is not testable. That's why it stays the same.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  15. Re:Your link is the bible by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.

    That's true. No matter how long human civilization lasts, the Bible will always hold an accurate record of God's chosen disciple, Lot, fucking his daughters. Nice choice, God - you picked a winner there!

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  16. Re:Your link is the bible by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you ever notice how science changes its anwsers so damn often. But the Bible stays the same.

    That's funny. The Koran stays the same, the Hindu Vedas stay the same, and many other religious texts which have nothing to do with the Christian god stay the same too. Does the quality of being static mean something to you?

    When I went to college, they taught some stuff in biology, chemsitry, and physics that is wrong. They graded our papers, and gave us low marks. Why? They did it to everyone. In my Chem class, and "A" was a 38.7%. That is about 4 out of 10 points on a test. The curve was fucking rediculous.

    What, exactly, does this have to do with anything? Hundreds of years ago Christians believed the earth was flat and that women should be burned alive. And you're complaining that either you couldn't learn or that your professor couldn't teach?

    God said they would persecute us. And they are doing that.

    Who are "they"? And what are "they" doing exactly?

    I would rather take comfort with God than with the here_today, gone_tomorrow of science.

    That's fine. Kids take comfort in teddy bears and imaginary friends too. Would you prefer a static stock market if change is too difficult for you to understand?

    Why not live in a happy moral time, with good families, and worthwhile occupations. Why live in horrible times, working for in the factory of an atheist for minimum wage?

    False dilemma much? Why not live in a happy non-religious time, where everybody gets along? Why live in the constant fear and guilt that Christianity teaches?

    THINK ABOUT IT. WHAT IS DIFFERENT TODAY? NO PENSIONS AT JOBS. NO GOOD JOBS. And there is less of God too. He is letting us know.

    Ah yes... that *clearly* is the *only* thing different today. Yes, *nothing else* has changed in history. Any other pearls of wisdom to share, oh swine of knowledge?

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  17. Re:Your link is the bible by Mac+Degger · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Yet, they formed a country with great prosperity. And they believed in GOD."

    Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick. That neocon bollocks is really sinking in, isn't it?

    THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE US WERE NOT CHRISTIANS!
    Read some history! The US was not founded on christian principles! The signers of the declaration of independance where mostly freemasons, and it is not a coincidence that there is only one reference to god in the constitution, one which is best attributed to 'habit' and 'the way things were done at the time' than any religious thought.
    Shit, even a cursory knowledge of history will show that the US was inhabited by people fleeing religious persicution in Europe and that they really, REALLY did NOT want a country founded on religious principles, but one where there was a seperation of church and state and where no religion could gain so much power that it could encroach upon any other religion.

    The rest of your post is fine, but thgis one point has been spouted by the neo-con movemenet so often that now it looks like a lot of americanss actually are starting to really beleive it.

    Just like it was the americans who captured the first Enigma machine.

    *grumble*historicalaccuracy*grumble*

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  18. Re:Your link is the bible by lemonlimeandbitters · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly we need to start some classes in trolling. This is a perfect example of the decline in trolling quality that we've seen at slashdot in the last few years.

    How, in the name of all that is holy, can you have a Bible troll like this without at least one direct reference to male homosexuality or bestiality! And there isn't even an attempt to blatantly steer the debate to make it a debate on abortion or prayer in schools.

    At long last, do you have no sense of troll decency sir? Oh usenet trolls of alt.athiesm, why have you abandoned us?

  19. Obligatory ST:TOS reference by dbhankins · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course first Enigma machine was not captured and decoded by Amewicans...

    It was famous Wussian scientist that cweated first decoder for Enigma, in same facility where they kept nuclear wessels.

    - Pavel Checkov

  20. Re:Your link is the bible by cahiha · · Score: 5, Funny

    200 years ago, most of the USA was filled with people who could not read or write. Yet, they formed a country with great prosperity. And they believed in GOD.

    They also didn't shower regularly. This uncanny association really makes you wonder, doesn't it? Maybe it was poor personal hygiene after all, rather than a belief in GOD, that made them prosperous.

  21. Re:Your link is the bible by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some of them were Christians. Some were deists. Some were out right atheists. Just as the grandparent shouldn't make vast generalizations neither should you. How do you classify someone such as Jefferson? Jefferson was by most accounts a deist. Is he Christian? He published a red letter edition of the new testament in which all of Jesus's moral teachings were well--highlighted in red. Yet he ignored the "mystical" elements. So was he religious or not? depends on your definition of religion mroe than anything.

    Ever read the Declaration of Independence?

    You are basically right--the Constitution and future government of the US was meant to be free of religion, and to protect freedom of religion. This does not mean that many of the founding fathers were not deeply religious men, nor that religion was universally reviled.

    I'm also curious about your point about "no religion could gain so much power that it could encroach upon any other religion." What about anti-semitic laws, catholic/protestant anti-miscegenation laws, and more, that we've had for years? Until relatively recently even.

    One must remember that the early American context was largely white (of Western European extraction), male, protestant. Other groups come into prominence later--be they black slaves, women, Irish, Catholics, Italians, Jews, etc.

    This is not to disagree with your basic point, but I would take issue with many of your assumptions (and incidentally, you've been reading too much Davinci Code with regards to masons--my grandfather was a mason, and the man attended church every week of his life--what's the correlation? none..read about freemasonry and you'll see what I mean)

  22. Re:Your right in a certain sense... by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not when you recall that Lot offered these same daughters to a rape mob, to avoid inconveniencing a couple of angels. Truly a man of God!

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  23. Re:Can I get a link please? by mrogers · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ctrl-A is the poor man's CSS ;-)

  24. Re:Fixed Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...shows a failure to grasp even the most basic aspects of X-ray emission in astrophysical plasmas.

    What idiots!

  25. Re:Your link is the bible by RayBender · · Score: 5, Insightful
    200 years ago, most of the USA was filled with people who could not read or write.

    Actually, that is incorrect. The 13 colonies, and in particular the Northern ones, had very high litteracy rates. Massachusetts had universal schooling, even for girls.

    Yet, they formed a country with great prosperity.

    Again, incorrect. The U.S. was quite poor; it wasn't even considered a nation of importance until the time of Teddy Roosevelt, i.e. the 20th Century. Before then Americans were considered to basically just be country bumpkins by people in the powerful countries of the day (UK, France, Germany). It didn't become a superpower until after the second world war. And that was to a large extent because of the efforts of imported, secular, German and Eastern European scientists.

    And they believed in GOD. They thanked him for what they had.

    I infer that you think that we should "go back" to a society where religion dominates all political thinking and public life. I would suggest that you look at the Middle Ages, or even the Dark Ages for an example of what life in a theocracy is like... For 1500 years they believed in God to the point of letting the church dominate all life - and lived in total squalor.

    --
    Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?