Sirius B
|
|
Thread rating:  |
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 12 Jul 2008 20:32 GMT Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6 light years away how could anything on earth survived such a blast.....
Krita started 146 milj ago and ended 86 milj years ago?
Is this correct?
Androcles - 12 Jul 2008 20:38 GMT | Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6 | light years away how could anything on earth survived such a | blast..... A nuclear weapon exploded over Hiroshima, Japan, on 6th August, 1945. How could anything in the USA have survived such a blast.....
| Krita started 146 milj ago and ended 86 milj years ago? | | Is this correct? No.
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 12 Jul 2008 20:58 GMT > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No. Oh you are correct Androcles it was 65 miljon years ago But the the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event marks the boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic periods, 199.6 million years ago, and is one of the major extinction events.
I do not know but i see the possibility for some doubts in carbon dating, and also when it comes to put dates on events within astronomy. I find it reasonably to beleive that Sirius B was cause to the Triassic-Jurassic extinction.
That leave us with the question what star did go nova when the great dinosaurs dissapeared.
So any Astronomer out there could tell me a nearby star that did go Nova at the end of Cretaceous–Tertiary time 65 miljon years ago, that was a pretty major extinction event.
I know they say it was an Asteroid and sure it can have been to.
Androcles - 12 Jul 2008 21:26 GMT On 12 Juli, 21:38, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No. Oh you are correct Androcles it was 65 miljon years ago But the the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event marks the boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic periods, 199.6 million years ago, and is one of the major extinction events.
I do not know but i see the possibility for some doubts in carbon dating, and also when it comes to put dates on events within astronomy. I find it reasonably to beleive that Sirius B was cause to the Triassic-Jurassic extinction. ============================================
Whoopee for you. <yawn> Now prove it. I find it reasonably to believe that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes but I do not know and I can't prove it... and you are not really interested. Let's prove Santa Claus comes down chimneys instead, we can both believe that one.
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 12 Jul 2008 21:49 GMT > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Well "SCIENTISTS" tells that if Betelgeuse goes Nova and if it's rotational axis aligned our way we would be in very difficult position and alot of life on earth would actually threatened. It is 427 lightyears away.
Wikipedia:Betelgeuse "Since its rotational axis is not toward the Earth, it is believed that Betelgeuse's supernova would not cause a gamma ray burst in the direction of Earth large enough to damage Earth's ecosystem even with its relatively close proximity of 427 light years."
Now ALDEBARAN is only 65 millions away and i have a feeling that if it go Nova we are f.cked, Now you prove me wrong and you will not find it that easy.
So if you have a better bet for the great extinctions then supernovas tell me. I do not find it unreasonable that asteroids caused the great "extinctions", and i do not find it unreasonable that supernovas did it either.
I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were caused by asteroids.
Androcles - 12 Jul 2008 23:36 GMT On 12 Juli, 22:26, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Well "SCIENTISTS" tells that if Betelgeuse goes Nova and if it's rotational axis aligned our way we would be in very difficult position and alot of life on earth would actually threatened. It is 427 lightyears away. ============================================
Wikipedia:Betelgeuse "Since its rotational axis is not toward the Earth, it is believed that Betelgeuse's supernova would not cause a gamma ray burst in the direction of Earth large enough to damage Earth's ecosystem even with its relatively close proximity of 427 light years." ==============================================
Stick around sci.physics and count the cranks. Some of them write articles for wackypedia, the encyclopaedia any crank can write. They like to call themselves "scientists".
Now ALDEBARAN is only 65 millions away and i have a feeling that if it go Nova we are f.cked, Now you prove me wrong and you will not find it that easy.
============================================== You obviously missed my point about proof, son. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are right. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. If I say bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes it is up to me to prove it. Anyone can say anything they like but only a fool would believe the nonsense. Why do we require proof? Well, if someone accuses you of a crime you can be thrown in jail, but the law and common sense requires that you be given a fair trial and the accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation is true. I do not believe you. Tough, isn't it? I didn't swallow your silly story, so what are you going to do about it? Show me the proof. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are right. Scientists say you are wrong, is that good enough a proof for you? I found that very easy. Now who is f.cked?
============================================== So if you have a better bet for the great extinctions then supernovas tell me. ==============================================
Bet? You want a wager? Put money up? Ok, how much money will you deposit with a lawyer (because I'll match it) and what are the rules for deciding the outcome? I bet you that I can do a better job of persuading people Aldeberan will not go nova in my lifetime or yours than you can that it will, and I bet you that you cannot prove the great extinctions were anything to do with novae. BTW, the plural of "nova" is "novae", not "novas". Otherwise we'd be saying hippopotamuses instead of hippopotami. ==============================================
I do not find it unreasonable that asteroids caused the great "extinctions", and i do not find it unreasonable that supernovas did it either.
================================================
I do. It is very unreasonable and indeed childish to latch on to the first thing you think of when the true answer is not known and may never be known. If you want to be a scientist the first thing you must learn is how to prove what you claim, or you will simply be laughed at.
================================================ I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were caused by asteroids. ================================================ Then you understand very little.
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 13 Jul 2008 07:53 GMT > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are > right. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. I think you missed my point about plausibility, i am not interested in proving things that can not be proven. It can not be proven that the astreroid outside Yucatan caused the extinction.
In fact it is provable by mere statistic that the great extinction is more plausible caused by a star going nova then an impact of an asteroid.
> If I say bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes > it is up to me to prove it. I do not see there is any reason for you to try to start to prove it, so far no elephants layed eggs. But you can rest assured that more than billions of planets been annhilated by novae.
> Anyone can say anything they like but only > a fool would believe the nonsense. Well if you think planets being annhilated by novae prove it.
> Why do we require proof? > Well, if someone accuses you of a crime you can be thrown in jail, > but the law and common sense requires that you be given a fair trial > and the accuser must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the > accusation is true. Yes it is all about reasonable doubt, and it come out in favour of electromagnetic disturbances caused by novae every time, when you compare it with the plausibility for asteroid impacts.
> I do not believe you. > Tough, isn't it? Well the dark ages maybe really was the dark ages, but you would not know. You only been around since 88. A little self inquiery maybe would not hurt.
> I didn't swallow your silly story, so what are you going to do about it? > Show me the proof. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to > prove you are right. No i do not since theories about the great extinction is not provable, only plausible you would know that if you had higher IQ.
> Scientists say you are wrong, is that good > enough a proof for you? No actually is not.
> I found that very easy. Well if your into to sheepish thinking, it is easy to be a square and follow into mainstream thinking.
I only care about what is most plausible, since no proofs is possible
> Now who is f.cked? The one with the *BOT* like behaviour, not the thinking programmer.
> ============================================== > So if you have a better bet for the great extinctions then supernovas [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I bet you that I can do a better job of persuading people Aldeberan > will not go nova in my lifetime or yours than you can that it will, and Well i am sure you can you have alot of mainstream scientist on your side, it do not however make their story more plausible.
> I bet you that you cannot prove the great extinctions were anything to > do with novae. > BTW, the plural of "nova" is "novae", not "novas". Otherwise we'd > be saying hippopotamuses instead of hippopotami. You are correct again Androcles, and you can not prove that asteroids cause them. I do have the more plausible theory from a statistic perspective though.
> ============================================== > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thing you think of when the true answer is not known and may never be > known. I guess you prefer to not know, and have no wish to find out the most important issue in history of earth. I however really want to know i look for plausible answers and when i found the most plausible answer i kling to it until another more plausible shows up.
No asteroids is not more plausible.
>If you want to be a scientist the first thing you must learn is > how to prove what you claim, or you will simply be laughed at. I am not a scientist i am however a very sharp mind for sure the sharpest you met.
> ================================================ > I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were > caused by asteroids. > ================================================ > Then you understand very little.- Dölj citerad text - No actually i understand quite alot about the psyche.
> - Visa citerad text - Androcles - 13 Jul 2008 12:36 GMT On 13 Juli, 00:36, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are > right. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. I think you missed my point about plausibility, i am not interested --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nor am I. Goodbye.
*plonk*
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 13 Jul 2008 16:10 GMT > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Good then you agree we can not find proof of what caused the great extinctions, only what about what is plausible to have caused them.
You go with the giant coconut theory, a strawmen like myself prefer a more plausible solution, like stars going nova sending radiation and particles disrupting earths magnetic field causing radiation death, tectonic mayhem and volcano and earthquake havoc. This was followed by a winter so called it make a nuclear winter look like a roman hot spa.
There seem to be a crack in the coconut theory, oh let me see using my crystal ball...
A (gigant coconut) exploded over (Yucatan, Mexico, on 6th August, 251.4 million years BC.
" It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species[3] and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct; it is the only known mass extinction of insects.[4] Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events."
How could anything in the Asia have survived such a blast.....
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2008 00:26 GMT On Jul 12, 11:53 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 186 lines] > > > - Visa citerad text - Can't help but notice how nice you're being to these incest mutated clones of something worse off than Hitler.
Your supernova considerations are in fact far more likely than anything else that's mainstream published and continually hyped as the most likely one and only cause.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 14 Jul 2008 22:24 GMT > On Jul 12, 11:53 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Well i actually hope to get some education and help of them one day. It may sound scary ai/but bots will in a near future take over the educational system. They are far better on analyse weakness in reasoning and spot origin of problems. And i see with pleasure that they already taken over the mathematical area, they will be excellent when it come to construct proofs and pick false proofs apart by logic and reasoning. Changes in mathematic will come.
AI's still seem to lack a bit of imagination when it come to put different information areas together, so development of strategies imitating imagination is required.
I guess in this area the human brain really is a black box a random oracle, where we get our ideas will always be shaded in clouds. although strategies for reasoning and information collection will be studied and implemented.
There seem to be reason in the random information puzzling, maybe behind the mad oracle is nonlocal synaps activity where information travel within electromagnetic fields to be picked up by neurons.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) - 13 Jul 2008 04:34 GMT Dear jonas.thornvall:
...
> I understand though that it give more comfort > beleiving that they were caused by asteroids. I believe it is the vast quantity of soil upset, and the layer of increased iridium that occurs about the time of the extinction that makes them think that. A GRB won't do that.
But whatever "Chicken Little" thing you want to want to waste your creative thought on...
David A. Smith
jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com - 13 Jul 2008 07:25 GMT On 13 Juli, 05:34, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> Dear jonas.thornvall: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > David A. Smith As you know there been more then one great exstinction, and if you think a star going nova in our neigbourhood will not affect us you better think again.
What is childish is to think that asteroids who's course was set billion of years ago hit us again and again. Most stellar body's have had their course set billion of years and the craters after asteroids on moon or earth did not happen during time earth been inhabited.
We know of many big catastrophes on earth that both caused floods earthquakes and during the last 10 000 years, that affected mankind worldwide. Now if you want to blame these on asteroids you surely are a fool.
And if you in fact conclude that the only reason for the upset soil and Irdium is due to an Asteroid your not that brightest star on the sky. A large disturbance of the electromagnetic field probably would cause alot of havoc to the tectonal plates witch in turn would cause earthquakes and vulcano activities to go skyrocket. And probably totally darken our skies. Now you think again about what caused the Iridium layer in the soil.
And then you think again about the connection between disturbances in the electro magnetic field earthquakes, and what may cause the disturbances.
And about your condescening chicken little theory i don't think you have to worry, there noone here that from a intelligence perspective can match me. Nor human nor bot You may certainly be more knowledgable but i worry more about your overall sheepish behaviour and squarelike thinking.
So save your patronising comments for someone who better needs them like a bot "Well you go think about that one too". There is only one bot in this thread but i guess you have not noticed.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) - 13 Jul 2008 16:29 GMT Dear jonas.thornvall:
...
> What is childish is to think that asteroids who's > course was set billion of years ago hit us again > and again. Most stellar body's have had their > course set billion of years Tunguska could have been such a strike.
There have been strikes observed on other planets in our solar system. If comet Shoemaker Levy 9 had struck Earth, you and I could not have had this conversation "today".
Apophis has been of recent concern.
The skies have not been swept clean.
Usually when something goes to failure; it is "bad luck" *and* "bad planning", "nuclear winter" *and* "no way to regulate internal body temperature". There is no reason there could not be two blows that accomplished any deed.
David A. Smith
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2008 00:16 GMT On Jul 12, 11:25 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 13 Juli, 05:34, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > billion of years ago hit us again and again. Most stellar body's have > had their course set billion of years That's 100% correct, at least per given cosmic or galactic life cycle.
> and the craters after asteroids on moon or earth did not happen during > time earth been inhabited. You'd better think that one through again, especially since Earth w/ moon is never going to see another ice-age.
btw, most of those posting here in Usenet/newsgroups are devout pretend-Atheists with ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Their kind of topic/author stalking and bashings are orchestrated on behalf of being very protective of their Zionist/Nazi DARPA. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
gb6724@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 03:27 GMT On Jul 12, 2:49 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > I understand though that it give more comfort beleiving that they were > caused by asteroids. 30 thousand years ago the core of our galaxy burped a few million solar flares, left the core of the galaxy empty. The core of our galaxy emits millions of times less radiation then the core of other galaxies.
On top of it the magnitude of the flare not weakens as it exist the galactic system through its disk but escape flare velocity builds. It moves just below the speed of light and the event was just spotted a few years ago.
All the prediction for a flare passing us for a thousand years (500 years of heating just begun and 500 years of cooling period) is found at: www.geocities.com/gmbajszar/BreakPedalEffect.htm
This radiation is nothing more than an immense heat source that heats up any gas in its way, where gas flares up. With the solar rays it is hard to detect this energy other than what we see: An instantly disappearing Norther ice cap. It was shown that the disappearing Ozone layer actually cools the Antarctic, though green house gasses don't build up there as a result.
So. Imagine 500 years of accelerating heat. It was determined that since the flare passed through in 10 years a gas cloud 300 light years from the core of the galaxy, that we are 100 times further away and the event instead of 10 years will pass us by in 1000 years, and the heat is not as instantly heating as it was in so close proximity to the core of the galaxy.
What we will see is that all predictions for global warming come in outpasting growth of heat. It was thought that the northern ice cap would disappear by 2040, but only the next year that number quickly moved down to 2012.
It may happen just based on all the dooms day predictions online for December 21, 2012, that a huge shiny radiation burst will hit us, and we are only experiencing the pre-heat.
gb6724@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 03:42 GMT > > > > | Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6 > > > > | light years away how could anything on earth survived such a [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > for December 21, 2012, that a huge shiny radiation burst will hit us, > and we are only experiencing the pre-heat. There is a way to survive. Must remain in an airplane on the dark side of the planet for a 1000 years. New perpetual motion machine technologies from around the world emerged, also found on my web page at www.geocities.com/gmbajszar/BreakPedalEffect.htm that is capable of running an airplane permanently, but must have all ability to maintain and repair the craft as it goes, with minimal time for occasional landings. Food is grown on board, water is taken from the air's humidity. Another place is deep under ground, of course the more happy solution. Some may survive.
gb6724@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 04:32 GMT On Jul 16, 8:42 pm, "gb6...@yahoo.com" <gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > | Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, it is only 8.6 > > > > > | light years away how could anything on earth survived such a [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > water is taken from the air's humidity. Another place is deep under > ground, of course the more happy solution. Some may survive. My theory talks of rotational energy in the core of the galaxy reaching escape energy that splits mass because rotation in the core of the galaxy speeded up. This happens when the galaxy contracts suddenly for some reason, like before explosions things tend to contract in to dark for a second and then light. Once rotational energies reached for ability to escape from the core, and here put away all Einstein's theories, the escape energy accelerates all the way to the outer galaxy thereof and slowing the galaxy's rotation in the process. Any mass escaping from a rotating galaxy slows the rotational energies of the galaxy. All rotational energies are trapped within, and there is a simple mechanism at the core to reach an energy threshold to release mass based on a fast core rotation whose speed depend on the rotation of the galaxy. All or some weight suddenly lifts. All this is a weight effect of things, the stuff encapsulating gravitation and the stuff behind dark matter.
The escaping energy traveling near the speed of light from the center of the galaxy measured 10 years to pass as a flare at 300 years from the core of the galaxy. We don't know any other details of when and how if this flare arrives, I only calculated it must accelerate on its way out while the galaxy must slow down in rotation as it happens with release of energy conditions in rotating bodies. An escaping body from the center is able to out-perform all the galaxy's gravitational disk and interacts with the galaxy's rotating forces as it escapes and carries strange inertia with sufficient escape dynamics to speed up out of control thereafter to the outer perimeters of our galaxy as this mass leaves the core. The galaxy may come to a rotational stop depending on the mass of this escaping weight source. Without a central mass things may also loose rotating balance and most of the dark matter in our galaxy would leave and our galaxy sucked up chaotically by the approaching Andromeda that sucked off over 500 million stars from our galaxy. The trail of stars reach out 20 of our galaxy distances already toward the approaching Andromeda. The lighter galaxy contracted and probably caused the central burst of energy from the contracting effect that triggered a central difusing of mass, not a catastrophic form explosion as a Supernova, but things are highly heated in the center of the galaxy. More than heat, what accelerates is speed. The lifting of weights out of the galaxy core happens smoothly like a rising skyrocketing elevator or capsule gaining speed in a weight lifting accelerating form permanently in release mode and not explosively released and not with the speed of light and max explosion effects. The acceleration of escape speed continues from that moment on because the galaxy rotates. This escape energy is directly intertied with the galaxy's rotation. Our galaxy had a balanced equilibrium as our galaxy formed to its size and balance, but the equilibrium was disbalanced by the approaching Andromeda.
An escaping core mass is the opposite effect to galactic jets where things press inward rather than build an outward escaping force upon which the jets silence. Early galaxies had lot of jets and things moved more heavily and dark matter was in much higher concentrations. But as dark matter weakened, jets queted in later galaxies and lighter, speedier distributions formed. But with speedier and wider distributions, cores get released, especially when looser in galactic structure due to accelerated conditions. With accelerated conditions mass swings out wider and the core's rotation speeds up. When another galaxy stretches our galaxy, that happens that the core speeds up, then the escape energy for the central weight happens, the opposite direction escape of energy to jets, not inward crashed but outward along the disk released burst of inner energies. A burst not from pressing but from pulling, stretching, and our galaxy was stretched.
This is based on my understanding that jets don't form as side residue to mass flowing inward black holes, and it was shown that the magnetic fields of jets don't correspond in shape to black hole theories, and it was suggested that the black hole theory is returned to the drawing boards because the numbers didn't add up. The jet burst is based on a full and direct flow of mass, and the same opposite effect releases if not most of the central mass weight in the galaxy at once in two split directions. All of it, and this is shown by the mysterious condition that unlike in other spiral galaxies, the core of our galaxy now emits millions of times weaker radiation signals. All that mass that would be blamed for producing radiation escaped and heading our direction.
When the flare would get here is unknown.
BradGuth - 14 Jul 2008 00:05 GMT On Jul 12, 12:58 pm, jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > <jonas.thornv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I know they say it was an Asteroid and sure it can have been to. As the 6+ solar mass of Sirius B went red giant and eventually flashed over into becoming the little but dense white dwarf, whereas that entire process lost track of at least 5 solar masses, with one of those solar mass units likely picked up by Sirius A.
There's also a darn good chance we were a whole lot closer to the Sirius star/solar system at that time. So, the terrestrial trauma caused by such a nearby event could very well have represented the primary cause and subsequent demise of such large scale forms of life which existed that that time.
What do you understand about the tidal radius holding onto various planets and their moons?
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Steve Willner - 16 Jul 2008 22:25 GMT > Sirius B evidently did go Nova 120 million years ago, How do you know that?
> it is only 8.6 light years away How far away was it 120 Myr ago?
> how could anything on earth survived such a blast..... http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt gives some estimates of SN effects. The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova#Impact_on_Earth seems pretty reasonable, but I haven't read it in detail, let alone checked it.
With regard to a later post in this topic, what evidence is there that gamma rays from supernovae are beamed?
 Signature Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA (Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial email may be sent to your ISP.)
|
|
|