First we all need a little backgorund in supernovas. Currently there are only two... yes TWO types of supernovas known to modern science. A brief
discription of each will help build my case.
The first type is a Type 1a,b, & c Supernovas. They are formed thusly...
One model for the formation of this category of supernova is a close binary star system. The progenitor binary system consists of main sequence stars,
with the primary possessing more mass than the secondary. Being greater in mass, the primary is the first of the pair to evolve onto the asymptotic
giant branch, where the star's envelope expands considerably. If the two stars share a common envelope then the system can lose significant amounts of
mass, reducing the angular momentum, orbital radius and period. After the primary has degenerated into a white dwarf, the secondary star later evolves
into a red giant and the stage is set for mass accretion onto the primary. During this final shared-envelope phase, the two stars spiral in closer
together as angular momentum is lost. The resulting orbit can have a period as brief as a few hours. If the accretion continues long enough, the white
dwarf may eventually approach the Chandrasekhar limit.
A second possible, but much less likely, mechanism for triggering a Type Ia supernova is the merger of two white dwarfs, with the combined mass
exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit (which is called a super-Chandrasekhar mass white dwarf). In such a case, the total mass would not be constrained by
the Chandrasekhar limit.
Type Ib and Ic supernovae are hypothesized to have been produced by core collapse of massive stars that have lost their outer layer of hydrogen and
helium, either via winds or mass transfer to a companion.
Here are some pictures of Type 1a, b, & c Supernovas...Notice how crisp and detailed the photos are
The second type of Supernova is a type 2. They are formed like this...
Within a massive, evolved star (a) the onion-layered shells of elements undergo fusion, forming a nickel-iron core (b) that reaches Chandrasekhar-mass
and starts to collapse. The inner part of the core is compressed into neutrons (c), causing infalling material to bounce (d) and form an
outward-propagating shock front (red). The shock starts to stall (e), but it is re-invigorated by neutrino interaction. The surrounding material is
blasted away (f), leaving only a degenerate remnant. This remnant is a Neutrino Star
Here are some type 2 supernovas...
Now all that background to get to my point. G1.9 DOES NOT fit in any of these categories. These aren't my words. These are the words of the scientists
that studied it...
In addition to being a record holder for youth, G1.9+0.3 is of considerable interest for other reasons. The high expansion velocities and the extreme
particle energies that have been generated are unprecedented
and should stimulate deeper studies of this object with Chandra and the VLA.
"No other object in the Galaxy has properties like this,"
said Reynolds. "Finding G1.9+0.3 is extremely important for learning more about how
some stars explode and what happens in the aftermath.
So, they call it a supernova, but say it is not like ANY other one they have observed and its properties are not not like ANYTHING seen before.... AND
This is all the visual evidence of G1.9 that we have. Three fuzzy lame pictures from the youngest, strangest, most exciting space object in our time.
Two radio pics from 1985 and 2008 and an x-ray from 2007
Now why can we have gorgeous high def. pics of all other supernovas and we got THREE pics of this. You mean not one pic since 2008...Really
And look at the final compiled pic. What is wrong with this pic??
The expanding remains of a supernova explosion in the Milky Way are shown in this composite image, on the left, of the supernova remnant G1.9+0.3.
NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory image obtained in early 2007
is shown in orange and the radio image from NRAO's Very Large Array (VLA) from
is in blue.
Why on Earth would you use a 1985 and 2007 photo when you have a 2008 radio image you could use???
Maybe so it looks more "explodey." Like the flames (orange xray) are flying away from the shock wave (blue radio)
That is what they are trying to convey here and IM NOT BUYIN'.
It should look more like this...
Now what about the center the seems hollow? Good question
Note the blackness at the center of the above photos of G1.9. This is expected of any star that has phonons on the outside instead of on the inside
like our Sun (Personal theory based on physics: matter and antimatter pick a magnetic zone to quadrant of in. Local space ambient ion charge
determines which type of matter will go inside and which goes outside). Phonons can be 100% efficient at absorbing light. Earthlings have only just
begun to learn about phonons as they play with crystals for electronics and other applications. Crystals will emit harmonic phonons until you squeeze
them, at which time they emit photons instead of harmonic phonons (owing to making magnetic transverse waves taller and closer together thus more
energetic into the light emitting range).
So in summary the critics must answer these questions:
1) Why is this "Supernova" unlike the other 100's of supernovas we can easily identify into two types?
2) Why are there only three photos of this "Unprecedented" object that we have known about since 1985?
3) Why does NASA insist this is a "Supernova" when they were confused with how fast it "grew" between 1985 and 2007?
4) Why does NASA insist this is a "Supernova" when it doesn't fit any known model of any other Supernova?
I propose that like Spanish and Russian scientists say this is a Brown Dwarf that is not "growing" but moving closer to us. That explains the
expansion. That explains why its not like any other Supernova. That explains why we have only fuzzy crap pictures of it. What do you
edit on 24-8-2011 by trueperspective because: New Thread Name