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.

 

NASA Finds “Death Star” Blasting Planet With X-Rays (880 light years from Earth)

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Don't blame me for the sensationalistic headline -- blame National Geographic.


Now, according to new data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope, astronomers can tell that the planet is being hit with x-rays about a hundred thousand times more intense that what Earth receives from the sun.

“This planet is being absolutely fried by its star,” study co-author Sebastian Schröter, of the University of Hamburg in Germany, said in a press statement.

newswatch.nationalgeographic.com...


As the brief but interesting article notes, part of what's fascinating about this is that the star in question should be too old to be able to produce that much energy. One theory presented is that the planet is so close to the star, its magnetic fields are sped up by the planet's rotation, keeping it "young" in activity millions of years after what we would expect.




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I keep thinking about what a wild guess that seems to me -- I'm wondering if we're not trying to make a square peg fit a round hole, and rather than questioning what we know about stars and their ages because that would lead to a lot of inconvenience, we're just deciding basically a wizard did it, since the 'theory' has no real math behind it that I've been able to find yet. I'm still looking though, so there may be more than just a vague guess supporting the idea that proximity is the key here.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
A planet 3 times the mass of Jupiter, about 0.025 AU away from what they say is a very young star (100 to 300) million years? Using what we know about planets this size it is a gas giant, and the gas is mostly hydrogen. Stars love hydrogen, it's the basic gas to fuel a stars fusion. I'd wager to guess the star is eating the planet. No need to bring in electric universe theories here, the gravitational pull must be enormous! The planet must be spinning wildly and rotating very fast around the star to not plummet right into it in one big feeding frenzy.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Very descriptive and informative post, thank you. The imagery you've evoked is compelling.

Also wanted to note that I wasn't the one to introduce the electrical theory, which I hardly know anything about -- it came from the scientist quoted in the article, who I think may have just been speaking in very simplified ways and then taken out of context. But I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who found it, as presented, perhaps a bit flimsier than deeper alternatives.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sepermeru
 


A lot of what is proposed by EU theorists is out of context, as in taken and delivered, but they are very adamant that Einstein is wrong. However I don't study these things, and I'm sure some here will come along and point out where my flaws are.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Neat!

I... don't believe the EU vs Standard Model debate is apropiate here....
The facts that we actually know about this are good enough to start your everyday step-by-step scientific method, so there's no need to discuss what "theory" we like best, it's only a matter of following the clues... (academically speaking...)



PS: I'm going to contradict myself and give my completely unimportant view on the subject

I don't care much for the absolute "passion" that the astrophysical-extremists show... It's not that hard to find consensus. On one hand the Standard Model has a LOT of accumulated evidence supporting most of its claims. To deny this is to be oblivious to the enormous mass of papers, studies, stellar surveys, etc... that we produced in the last hundred years or so.
On the other hand, the EU proposition does contain, at least for me, some very interesting postulates. And cosmological implications. So I believe it shouldn't be frowned upon just because some of it's most verbose supporters behave like drooling monkeys. (actually, every extreme position in a debate will result in the production of drooling monkeys, it's a proven fact)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
And, to expand on the OT:

There's NO reference whatsoever to the Electric Universe in the article, so maybe I'm missing something.


The star is already all growed up, with an estimated age between 100 million and 300 million years old.
But CoRoT-2a is also very active for its age—the star is producing all those x-rays thanks to a strong and turbulent magnetic field, which is a feature of much younger stellar bodies.
The study authors surmise that the star’s activity may be an effect of the planet orbiting relatively close, at a distance about ten times the span between Earth and the moon.
“Because this planet is so close to the star, it may be speeding up the star’s rotation, and that could be keeping its magnetic fields active,”
study co-author Stefan Czesla, also from the University of Hamburg, said in the statement.


I believe it is pretty self-explanatory.
So, again THERE IS NO NEED TO BRING THE EU VS STANDARD MODEL DEBATE HERE, PRETTY PLEASE.



Anyway, it is an absolutely mind blowing discovery. Just picture it in your mind... It just tickles me in the right way



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Well sorry I mentioned EU, it might have been because of the sensationalistic 'death star' title, X-ray blasting a planet away with massive high-energy radiation evaporating 5 million tons of planetary matter a second. Then it goes on to say the planet's proximity is keeping (a very young star's) electromagnetic field active for it's age. I didn't realize our sun lost it's electromagnetic field, at a ripe old age around 4.6 billion years.

Not once was gravity mentioned. I must have just concurred the author was trying to make a personal belief point with her writing style, and read too much into it.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
There's nothing to be sorry, man.


As I said before I have no quarrel whatsoever with EU, really.
I just wanted to note that the article wasn't attributing this phenomena (sp?) to some of the processes described by the EU proposition.

And they don't need to actually say "gravity" for, as long as it's not expressly said so, it is understood that they are describing a phenomena within the parameters of the Standard Model, it's NationalGeographic, after all, not the Daily Mail.



Drakus



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
There's nothing to be sorry, man.


As I said before I have no quarrel whatsoever with EU, really.
I just wanted to note that the article wasn't attributing this phenomena (sp?) to some of the processes described by the EU proposition.

And they don't need to actually say "gravity" for, as long as it's not expressly said so, it is understood that they are describing a phenomena within the parameters of the Standard Model, it's NationalGeographic, after all, not the Daily Mail.



Drakus



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join