I Have Proven That G1.9 is a Brown Dwarf: The Inconsistencies Tell The Story!!

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...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7056cdeb8b60.jpg[/atsimg]

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1c52de47b247.jpg[/atsimg]

The second type of Supernova is a type 2. They are formed like this...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c689e74835a.jpg[/atsimg]

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...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bda580bb1d97.jpg[/atsimg]

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.
Source: www.sciencedaily.com...

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 YET

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42191c7f02a5.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6acdde6559b2.jpg[/atsimg]

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??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/24b4d4617b1b.jpg[/atsimg]

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 1985 is in blue.
Source: chandra.harvard.edu...

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...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6cd5e42a37d0.jpg[/atsimg]

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).
Source: www.nowpublic.com...

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 think?

Question number 5
Why does it look like the firefox icon?

Its an interesting HYPOTHESIS, and thats about it, change your title to say that instead of 100% proof and you will get a few more responses.

its a well written article there is no need to put that in the title.

Also care to link to where these other scientists say its a brown dwarf?

if your correct are you saying this could be the fabled NIBURU, planet-x etc everyones going on about?

reply to post by trueperspective


is this going to effect earth in any way ?

reply to post by Vandalour


I think so. If it is a Brown Dwarf it will have a lot of gravitational pull. So I think it could have an impact.
I would watch out for tidal changes in the next few years.

I'm confused. You are stating that G1.9 is a Brown Dwarf.

Yet.....

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.

Source

Brown Dwarf :

Currently there is some debate as to what criterion to use to define the separation between a brown dwarf and a giant planet at very low brown dwarf masses (~13 MJ ), and whether brown dwarfs are required to have experienced fusion at some point in their history

source

So a brown dwarf is essentially a planet, but that depends on the mass, and possibly if it experienced fusion.

Why exactly would a brown dwarf exhibit high expansion velocities and extreme particle energies? Or are you suggesting that what all these scientists are calling a Super Nova is actually the birth of a brown dwarf?

I second the notion of removing 100% proof, you have proven nothing and cherry picked your quotes. None of the scientists in that article are questioning if it's a super nova or not, they are merely saying it's much younger that they thought, and more energetic.

As well, your complaint about the image quality is addressed in the second and third paragraphs:

The recent supernova explosion was not seen in optical light about 140 years ago because it occurred close to the center of the Galaxy, and is embedded in a dense field of gas and dust. This made it about a trillion times fainter, in optical light, than an unobscured supernova. However, the supernova remnant it caused, G1.9+0.3, is now seen in X-ray and radio images.

We can see some supernova explosions with optical telescopes across half of the Universe, but when they're in this murk we can miss them in our own cosmic backyard," said Stephen Reynolds of North Carolina State University, who led the Chandra study. "Fortunately, the expanding gas cloud from the explosion shines brightly in radio waves and X-rays for thousands of years. X-ray and radio telescopes can see through all that obscuration and show us what we've been missing."

Source

while I don't doubt u..I'm knew to G1.9 so I'ma read a bit more but these are crazy times 4 sure..thanks OP

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


No, I was saying what the scientists said about it. I was proving that they call it a Supernova, but its "growth" has them confused as it doesn't fit there models. I think it is getting closer. Does that clear it up?

I have seen more "100% proof" posts in the last 2 days than I think I have in months, and it's always the same thing.. it's never 100% proof.. if it's "undeniable" it's usually deniable ..

There should be some sort of ban on the use of those kinds of subjects...

reply to post by miniatus


I have renamed the Thread just for you. I took out the 100%.
Although I am beyond certain this is not a supernova, but something else. Brown Dwarf is the best explaination

reply to post by trueperspective

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 think?

I think you have a very interesting theory here and I'm glad you took the time to share your thoughts. Could you perhaps give a bit more background on G1.9 for those who don't know? I just did a quick search because I'm not really familiar with it. And guess what the first result in Google was?
G1.9 Confirmed a Binary Red Dwarf Star.

EDIT: That article was released in 2010 but Wikipedia is still claiming G1.9 is a supernova remnant.

reply to post by trueperspective


That's an awfully huge brown dwarf to look that large from 20,000ly away considering they're normally about the size of Jupiter or a little smaller due to compression. Unless you're saying you have some sort of proof that it's a heck of a lot closer than that. Either way your title is completely inaccurate.

Yes, it is a young nova, and it's also only visible within certain wavelengths because it's too obscured by everything else in the galactic center.

The reason they were surprised at the rate of expansion is because, up until that point, they had assumed it was a bit older than its ~140 years it is estimated at currently.

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

No, I was saying what the scientists said about it. I was proving that they call it a Supernova, but its "growth" has them confused as it doesn't fit there models. I think it is getting closer. Does that clear it up?

just a couple of quick questions for you...

when, in your scientific estimation, do you think that this brown dwarf will arrive in our solar system?

and why do you think it's headed for planet earth? wouldn't logic dictate that it would head for the planet with the largest gravity well?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

this is so fascinating! my pondering at moment are

1 - how far away from pluto? from us?? is G1-brown dwarf

2 - what non-a/numeric name has it been given. none?

3 - it produces heat and/or light right and it may have its own planetary bodies in orbit round it?

fascinating.

reply to post by trueperspective

Where is your proof that G1.9 is getting closer? Hopefully not through the appearance of its apparent expansion. There are other ways of determining a celestial objects distance and relative motion.

How far away do you think this object is? I take it you don't believe the current estimate of 25,000 light years away so, how far do you think G1.9 is from Earth? Do you have any evidence backing up any claim of its distance from either the current estimate or your own?

reply to post by lordpiney


That is a really good question. Here is your answer
G1.9+03 was known as far back as 1984, and 2007 Chandra X-ray observations have shown it to have increased in size by at least 15% between 1985 and 2008 or 0.65% per year, indicating it is either expanding or getting closer to us. Source: www.librarising.com...

Here is an artist representation...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dbf4beea2d06.jpg[/atsimg]

So 60 AU is the current suspected distance

reply to post by trueperspective

So 60 AU is the current suspected distance

Care to link any source addressing this claim?
There is a current estimation that puts this object, G1.9, at a distance of over 25,000 LY away. Why do you think this is wrong? Can you explain this current estimation and yours and why you think yours is correct?

reply to post by trueperspective


edit: Oh, I see you linked to it in your OP. I just glossed over the link. You didn't mention anything about the Nemesis theory or how it had satellites and was just beyond Pluto...or did you think that would make your theory look too crazy?

Have you looked at that article I linked to? You really ought to take a look. It goes into quite some depth on this whole G1.9 topic. This excerpt backs up what you were saying:

How it was discovered... the controversy

You might well ask why astronomers have never detected this object before. In fact they did. G1.9 was first identified as a "supernova remnant" in 1984 by Dave Green of the University of Cambridge and later studied in greater detail with NRAO's Very Large Array radio telescope in 1985. Because it was unusually small for a supernova it was thought to be young -- less than about 1000 years old.

But in 2007, X-ray observations made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory revealed that the object was much larger than the last time it was observed! It had grown in size by 16%. Puzzled by this observation, the Very Large Array repeated its observations of 23 years ago and verified that it had increased in size considerably. Knowing that supernova do not expand this quickly, unless they have just exploded, they explained that G1.9 must be a "very young" supernova -- perhaps not more than 150 years old. But no record of a visible supernova has been found corresponding to that historical period (about the time of the American Civil War).

reply to post by trueperspective


I would also think a good bit of that text in your OP should be in EXquotes since it's directly copied and pasted. For example, your explanation for the hollow center and phonons, is actually a direct quote from a Colleen Thomas that I saw on G1.9 Confirmed Binary Red Dwarf Star

Though note they call it a Red Dwarf, not a Brown Dwarf as an aside note...so even the crazed theories can't get their stories straight.

I'm unsure why this crackpot part of a ludicris theory even needs extrapolating on considering you can see a similar effect in your own home by blowing soap bubbles in the air and it's also not all that uncommon for other SNR images You see the edge or outline of the bubble most-clearly because of the combined refraction from the edge-on view of the sides of the bubbles, whereas the facing side does not get such an effect (obviously) and therefore remains mostly transparent.

Going back to the picture quality question, I'd say it's a feat of our scientific advancement that they can image something at all near the galactic center.

Lastly, changing from 100% proven to "I have proven" is a bit of a stretch considering all your 'data' appears to be copied and pasted from elsewhere...such as the link I provided.

reply to post by trueperspective

Source: www.librarising.com...

I doubt this link should in any way be considered a good source. For one they are mixing up the binary stellar orbit theory with that of Nibiru, the mythological planet. This shows they no nothing of either theory. They fail to source any claims being made to its location. This is after all the crux of your theory in this thread I think.

Perhaps you should focus on data that attempts to locate this object, G1.9.