It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3-D Images Reveal New Composition of the Sun

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

3-D Images Reveal New Composition of the Sun


www.nsf.gov

What would happen if the yardstick that astronomers used to measure the universe was too long?

This huge change in chemical abundance alters prevailing theories about the structure and evolution of stars. For instance, the sun's chemical composition is a primary piece of evidence used in telling the story of our galaxy's evolution: the cycle of birth and destruction that led to the creation of Earth and its heavy elements.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Just another proof that science still has a long way to go before we will actually have the slightest clue about the mighty universe we live in,

I wonder what other announcements will happen and how it will alter the current model of the evolution of the universe once they revise the makeup of stars

www.nsf.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   


Very cool


Animation

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Very interesting! I take it then that this would affect our chances of finding life-harboring planets elsewhere in the galaxy.

Although, I am a little confused to be honest. I thought that a large majority of matter (ok, well basically all matter) is produced during supernovae, when the successive chain reactions of implosion in the star bond atoms together to create chemical compounds (matter) and then the resulting explosion propels all of this substance out. Now if there is much less Carbon and Oxygen, both very atomically light compounds, this would mean that there is a much greater abundance of heavy elements, although I suppose the ratio of difference would be much lower (ie. since heavy elements have more atoms bonded together, there would be far less of the heavy elements than there would have been lighter ones).

This then, as I speculate and think "out loud" here, would mean that the relative thicknesses of the stars layers, by atomic weight, would be much different than originally suggested?

Someone please help me out here haha, it's been a little while since my astronomy class.

NEXUS



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I think a key phrase in the article is this:

Since the chemical make-up of the sun is a reference point for the composition of other objects in the universe, many models that relied on the higher abundances were also put into question by Allende Prieto's assertion.


There are many models and there have been many "discussions" over oxygen abundance. Prieto's work is clearing some of the underbrush and getting closer to the reality. One prevailing idea that this does throw into the trash bin is that the Sun is fundamentally different from our neighboring stars. It turns out it is quite similar in carbon and oxygen abundances to them. It means that the stars in our corner of the galaxy seems to have a similar history.

This doesn't require a radical change in astrophysical theory but it does call for some revised models.
New tools=new data=new ideas. Science.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I had to pause on this statement , " "Everything we know from objects in the universe comes from the analysis of light," said Lars Koesterke "

I then went off on a mental tangent on the theory of the conscious universe .



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I had no idea there was a prevailing theory that our Sun had a higher carbon and oxygen abundance than other stars. This would make very little sense, seeing as all stars are made from the same matter, which all came from the same energy at (supposedly) the same "point" in time. Seeing the nebulous, galactic scale at which stars are formed, and gravity being the universal mechanic of space-time that it is, it would seem rather silly to speculate that our Sun is any different from the infinite number of other stars out there.

Not to say that any and all stars are homogeneous and cut from the exact same template, but just that unless they had very solid proof of this, why did they go about thinking that?

NEXUS



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


Interesting, then, to think that light is an electromagnetic pulse with a dual wave-particle nature, which expresses itself as photons (massless packets of energy). And E=MC2 dictates that mass is just an expression of energy, based on it's relative "speed".

NEXUS



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NoEXcUseS
 


Ah yes but the magic truly happens when it bounces off something



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NoEXcUseS
 
They thought that because based on previous spectral analysis techniques, the Sun showed much higher abundances of oxygen and carbon (and thus lower abundances of heavier elements) than nearby stars. Not so much now. The new modeling shows that we're all cousins. It also means that we have to look at "Sunlike" stars in a new way too. Which means...new ideas.

Nothing radical at this point but one thing does tend to lead to another.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


Indeed. Magic indeed, that a massless particle can bounce off things. But it can't simply be put as that, because that is only to look at 1 side of 2 facets. The photon is simply a localized concentration of energy which cannot be individually analyzed, but seen as such from a quantum field of energy, vibrating through space-time. And this "space" is indeed far from empty, for virtual particles are constantly exchanged between all particles (the reaction of "bouncing" is in fact just a series of exchanges of virtual particles at an unimaginably fast rate) and particles will even exchange virtual particles with THEMSELVES! It is truly a cosmic dance of energy, endless vibration and endless creation and destruction. The rhythm of the universe is of infinite creative potential. Yes, Shiva knows the tune...

NEXUS



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It is wonderful when science takes the steps forward, due to the unending rigor and creativity of the community of scientists this world takes for granted.

And thank you for the clarification.

NEXUS



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


One thing I must note is that science is always generally wrong about everything until it is right, then it is only right so long that it is not proven wrong.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 

You don't have that right.

Science is right about what it says until it is proven to be wrong. Once proven to be wrong it is right about what it says. Just because science isn't always right, does not mean it is always wrong. Just because science doesn't "know" everything, does not mean that it "knows" nothing.


[edit on 8/19/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
sorry of topic ,,very cool pics...
thats the closest if not identical to the house size amber ufos texture ,when i describe it as living or undulateing.. sorry had to say it,, because thats what they look like up close.. not at all like lanterns.. .ill jump of now




top topics



 
6

log in

join