The magnetic wakes of pulsar planets

Oct 08, 2012
This image, which combines data from the Hubble Space Telescope (visible light), Spitzer Space Telescope (infrared) and Chandra X-ray Observatory (X-rays) shows the Crab Pulsar. The X-ray emissions (in blue) show the location of high-energy phenomena around the rapidly spinning star. The visible and infrared light (shown in red) traces the location of debris thrown out by the supernova that destroyed the Crab Pulsar’s progenitor star. New research shows how electromagnetic phenomena in pulsar systems can greatly affect the motion of small bodies like asteroids and comets that form the building blocks of planets. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/J. Hester (ASU); Optical: NASA/ESA/J. Hester & A. Loll (ASU); Infrared: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Gehrz (Univ. Minn.)

Pulsars are among the most extreme stars in the universe: dense balls of matter which are heavier than the Sun, yet only a few tens of kilometers in diameter. They rotate rapidly (up to several hundred revolutions per second) and flash like lighthouse beacons—hence the name, which is short for pulsating star. And yet despite these exotic properties, pulsars are like our Sun in one way at least: two have been observed to be home to planetary systems.

In work presented to the European Congress in Madrid on Friday 28 September, Fabrice Mottez () makes a series of predictions about the properties of around pulsars. His team's work has implications both for how to discover these planets, and for their formation, evolution and properties.

"Pulsars and their planetary systems work a bit like giant electric generators," says Mottez. "If the conditions are right, the magnetic field and of the pulsar can interact with planets and create a powerful electromagnetic wake around the planets."

This phenomenon may be visible from Earth, which would provide a new method of detecting planets around pulsars. But it has even greater importance for how pulsar planet systems evolve.

When objects such as stars or planets radiate, they lose energy. And while the forces unleashed by the wakes around pulsar planets are not large enough to have a major effect on the planets' orbits, they are expected to have much more profound effects on smaller bodies like asteroids and comets.

"Depending on the direction of their orbits, asteroids and comets could be thrown out into distant orbits or dragged down onto the pulsar's surface. Even for objects as big as a kilometer in diameter, this could happen in less than 10,000 years, which is very rapid on astronomical timescales," says Mottez.

While these phenomena have only a small impact on the orbital motions of planets, Mottez's work is an important step towards better understanding how circumpulsar planets may form.

Pulsars are the dense cores leftover from large stars after they explode in a supernova. Although supernovae are extremely violent, it is thought that planets surrounding an exploding star can survive the blast, albeit in a heavily disrupted orbit. However, planetary survivors like these are not the only kind of planet that could in theory exist around a pulsar.

Planets form from discs of matter that gradually accrete around stars, usually when the star has just been born. However, it is thought that the debris thrown out by supernovae could provide material that triggers a second burst of planet formation around pulsars, shortly after the explosion.

The disruptive effects of the electromagnetic wake on small objects could have profound consequences for the formation of such second generation .

Explore further: Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Spitzer Finds Hints of Planet Birth Around Dead Star

Apr 05, 2006

NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has uncovered new evidence that planets might rise up out of a dead star's ashes. The infrared telescope surveyed the scene around a pulsar, the remnant of an exploded star, and ...

Planetary systems can form around binary stars

Jan 10, 2006

New theoretical work shows that gas-giant planet formation can occur around binary stars in much the same way that it occurs around single stars like the Sun. The work is presented today by Dr. Alan Boss of ...

Capturing planets

May 22, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The discovery of planets around other stars has led to the realization that alien solar systems often have bizarre features - at least they seem bizarre to us because they were so unexpected. ...

Scientists discover planetary system orbiting Kepler-47

Sep 13, 2012

News flash: The Milky Way galaxy just got a little weirder. Back in 2011 astronomers were amazed when NASA's Kepler spacecraft discovered a planet orbiting a double star system.  Such a world, they realized, ...

Recommended for you

Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

18 hours ago

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted an eruption of dust around a young star, possibly the result of a smashup between large asteroids. This type of collision can eventually lead to the ...

Witnessing the early growth of a giant

Aug 27, 2014

Astronomers have uncovered for the first time the earliest stages of a massive galaxy forming in the young Universe. The discovery was made possible through combining observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2012
"Pulsars and their planetary systems work a bit like giant electric generators," says Mottez. "If the conditions are right, the magnetic field and stellar wind of the pulsar can interact with planets and create a powerful electromagnetic wake around the planets."

Ummm... Yes, as do ALL star/planetary systems, and just as we have found with Jupiter/Io in our own solar system. http://www.space....oon.html

The Sun/Earth also have this same connection, it is the source of Earth's magnetosphere, and the Earth behaves as a sort of "leaky capacitor" within the Sun's solar circuits.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2012
The perplexing part of the theory is the reliance upon gravity to do all of the work of this electric generator. After all, gravity is incomprehensibly weak compared to the electric force: the difference is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^39.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2012
The perplexing part of the theory is the reliance upon gravity to do all of the work of this electric generator. After all, gravity is incomprehensibly weak compared to the electric force: the difference is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^39.


Nothing perplexing about it at all, eletrical charges come in equal numbers of positive and negative so overall tend to cancel while gravity accumulates, the negative binding energy is tiny compared to the positive energy (in the form of mass) of the bound particles. There are a lot more than 10^39 neutrons in a pulsar and of course neutrons are neutral!

Where magnetic effects can be significant is in the low density plasma of the stellar wind but gravity is still a major effect, you cannot model these systems without considering both.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2012
Quote from article: "And yet despite these exotic properties, pulsars are like our Sun in one way at least: two have been observed to be home to planetary systems. "

Is it possible that our sun was once supernova? Nah, the condensation theory is much more likely. After all, how could a neutron star turn into a sun low in lithium and composed of mostly hydrogen and helium?

http://phys.org/n...lar.html
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
"just as we have found with Jupiter/Io in our own solar system. http://www.space....oon.html


"The volcanic activity is a result of Io being stretched and squeezed as it orbits Jupiter. Io's rock surface bulges up and down by as much as 100 meters during the process."

That's the gravitational effect which generates signiicant amounts of internal heat.

"Because of the volcanic activity, Io's atmosphere contains mostly sulphur dioxide. Io's orbit cuts across Jupiter's powerful magnetic lines of force, turning Io into an electric generator. As Jupiter rotates, the magnetic forces strip away about a ton (1,000 kg) of Io's material every second."

That's partly the magnetic effect, 1 tonne per second is tiny for a whole moon. That's a good example of how much stronger gravitational effects can be. It all depends on the circumstances.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2012
Nothing perplexing about it at all, eletrical charges come in equal numbers of positive and negative so overall tend to cancel while gravity accumulates, the negative binding energy is tiny compared to the positive energy (in the form of mass) of the bound particles. There are a lot more than 10^39 neutrons in a pulsar and of course neutrons are neutral!

Where magnetic effects can be significant is in the low density plasma of the stellar wind but gravity is still a major effect, you cannot model these systems without considering both.


You need to get past this notion that electric charges "cancel out", it is an assumption that has zero foundation in reality. The multitude of interactions of electrified plasma are extremely complex, to claim they just "cancel out" doesn't come close to describing the actual behavior of the individual particles that make up plasma.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2012
You need to get past this notion that electric charges "cancel out", it is an assumption that has zero foundation in reality.


Don't touch a block of wood then, it is full of positive and negative charges (electrons and protons), you might get electrocuted.

If you get past your obsession and actually read my reply, you would see I was talking about the pulsar, not the plasma when I said it was neutral.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2012
Hi all. FYI, a neutron star that spin creates a magnetic field which funnels accretion matter-energy into its jet 'beacons' from the polar regions. Just because we think its just 'neutral' star, it doesn't mean charges are static. Eg, Earth is roughly neutral overall but generates a magnetic field by stratified materials rotating acting like generator stator-rotor system. In Neutron stars it is likely that the inner and outer layers are stratified. The inner neutron star core may be like superconducting/superfluidic material (analogy of earth's inner core layers). The neutron star 'crust' may also be molten underneath and solid at surface layers. Such 'overall neutral' materials under suitable conditions can generate great electromagnetic field (eg "Magnetars"), so gravity and electromagnetism may play 'complementary' roles, not dominant ones where gravity produces the conditions (initial spin, layering) and emag field/generation forces may produce the plasma and other phenomena. :)
jsdarkdestruction
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2012
Quote from article: "And yet despite these exotic properties, pulsars are like our Sun in one way at least: two have been observed to be home to planetary systems. "

Is it possible that our sun was once supernova? Nah, the condensation theory is much more likely. After all, how could a neutron star turn into a sun low in lithium and composed of mostly hydrogen and helium?

http://phys.org/n...lar.html

no, as it was shown to oliver k manuel, our sun is not and never was, a neutron star. that horse has been beaten to death.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
Such 'overall neutral' materials under suitable conditions can generate great electromagnetic field (eg "Magnetars"), so gravity and electromagnetism may play 'complementary' roles, ...


Exactly, though the pulsar in question isn't a magnetar. That is precisely why quoting the figure of 10^39 as the ratio of electrostatic to gravitational force was irrelevant.

Alfven should be aware of that, he was a professional, "cantdrive85" is just a clueless mission poster.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2012
Plasma,,,,,,,

Everything that is, is plasma.

Everything there will ever be, will be plasma.

Everything that ever was, was plasma.

If it doesn't include a healthy dose of plasma, then it can't, by definition, be science. The world of science should get their act together, and quit wasting time on things that aren't plasma,,,, those things won't lead to anything that is worth half as much as plasma.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2012
I take it there are quite a few of you guys that don't feel the need to try open your eyes to the fact you will be needing an insulated suit to protect you from the "plasma rays" which are taking over the universe. Well you'll get yours, you'll see, the "plasma" will come to dominate your lives just like the rest of the universe.

By the By: A tinfoil hat won't help you when the "plasma" beings get here.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2012
Quote from article: "And yet despite these exotic properties, pulsars are like our Sun in one way at least: two have been observed to be home to planetary systems. "

Is it possible that our sun was once supernova? Nah, the condensation theory is much more likely. After all, how could a neutron star turn into a sun low in lithium and composed of mostly hydrogen and helium?

http://phys.org/n...lar.html

no, as it was shown to oliver k manuel, our sun is not and never was, a neutron star. that horse has been beaten to death.

Hardly!
Pressure2
1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2012
The evidence is accumulating for a supernova sun model.

The fact that the sun lacks the angular momentum most theorists think it should have.

The fact the sun radiated less energy in the past, it was cooler.

The fact it has less lithium than it should have and is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium.

And now we know pulsars often have planetoids!

All these can be explained and fit in with our sun being a supernova in the past.

Evidence for the accretion model of our solar system? I cannot think of any, I could use some help here.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2012
Io's rock surface bulges up and down by as much as 100 meters during the process

OK, landing on IO might not be such a great idea, after all.

Just because we think its just 'neutral' star, it doesn't mean charges are static

While neutrons are electrically neutral they do have a magnetic moment because they're made up of three quarks (1 up and 2 down quarks with 2/3 and -1/3 charge respectively). So a body where all neutrons are aligned can have a significant resulting magnetic moment without any overal charge.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2012
Re: "Nothing perplexing about it at all, eletrical charges come in equal numbers of positive and negative so overall tend to cancel while gravity accumulates"

I'm sorry, but you need to take a closer look at your plasma physics text. Quasi-neutrality does NOT imply a lack of conductivity. The term quasi-neutrality was coined for plasmas for this EXACT reason -- in order to differentiate a neutral PLASMA from the neutral state of condensed matter. Conductivity is a function of the MOBILITY OF CHARGED PARTICLES. Hence, plasmas exhibit inherent conductance, as a virtue of being a plasma, because the charged particles are free to move about.

In the plasma laboratory, we can observe that plasmas exhibit a minute electrical resistance. Contrary to the cosmic plasma models which are widely adopted by astrophysicists today -- and which were in fact disowned by their creator, Hannes Alfven -- plasmas can indeed support electric fields, DYNAMIC magnetic fields and electrical currents.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
In fact, within the plasma laboratory, we observe that electric currents can take on a filamentary geometry. When two of these filaments approach one another, they exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion. This can cause the filaments to twist around one another without combining. If the flux (or charge density through a plane) reaches a certain critical threshold, a z-pinch discharge can form. It's important to note that the force between these two filaments is the ELECTRIC FORCE.

Since plasmas can exist in three separate states -- dark, glow and arc -- this electric force will not always be as obvious as conventional astrophysicists assume. A dark mode plasma may lack charge density to emit light, but we can still see these structures at the 21-cm wavelength. Gerrit Verschuur has sifted through such all-sky surveys and observed that the term interstellar "cloud" is largely a misnomer. These "clouds" are in fact highly filamentary.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
Re: "Where magnetic effects can be significant is in the low density plasma of the stellar wind but gravity is still a major effect, you cannot model these systems without considering both."

Actually, our observations indicate quite clearly that gravity is in fact NOT CAPABLE of explaining the observed motions of galaxies. Based upon observations using parallax -- which, incidentally, only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way (!) -- we can see that stars are far too far apart from one another to exert much meaningful pull upon one another. There is something else going on -- which is why dark matter has been proposed.

However, if astrophysicists were to simply ALIGN their cosmic plasma models with the laboratory plasma models, an alternative, more physical solution presents itself: Dark matter is easy to explain as a consequence of the electric force carried by filaments of conducting plasmas.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
Since plasma is so pervasive in our observations of space, the cosmology which one ends up with is ENTIRELY determined by how one models the cosmic plasma. Gerrit Verschuur has observed critical ionization velocities to be associated with "knots" within these cosmic plasma filaments. A CIV is what one gets when you slam charged particles into a neutral gas. He has also correlated DOZENS of these knots with WMAP hot spots.

If one chooses to model the cosmic plasma as though it is a superconductor, free of any resistance at all; as if its magnetic fields are "fossil" fields, rather than the result of electric currents; and as if the plasma cannot sustain an electric field -- then all that you've done, in the process of simplifying the mathematics, is to SWITCH COSMOLOGIES from an ELECTRICAL plasma-dominant universe to a GRAVITY-DRIVEN gas-dominant universe.

It's sold as a mathematical shortcut, but what is this approximation really? It's a SELF-FULFILLING ASSUMPTION.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
There is also yet another -- arguably obvious -- problem with this notion that equal numbers of charged particles will tend to "cancel one another out": The mass of the proton is on the order of 2,000 times that of the electron. So, in the presence of an electromagnetic field, the electron will tend to zoom away while the proton will react much more slowly.

Re: "Exactly, though the pulsar in question isn't a magnetar. That is precisely why quoting the figure of 10^39 as the ratio of electrostatic to gravitational force was irrelevant."

The rate at which pulsars have been observed to pulse is highly suggestive of a relaxation oscillator. These are arguably just sparks, also evidenced by the occasional glitching we see. It takes somebody who refuses to question textbook theory to refuse to infer anything other than a spinning lighthouse. If cosmology wants to join the club of science, there are rules which come with that title -- foremost being that you cannot ignore inferences.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
cantdrive85 stated: "You need to get past this notion that electric charges "cancel out", it is an assumption that has zero foundation in reality."

... which elicited the unfortunate response ...

"Don't touch a block of wood then, it is full of positive and negative charges (electrons and protons), you might get electrocuted."

Guys, I don't know how to say this so that you will actually listen, but there is no science to equating the NEUTRALITY of condensed matter to the QUASI-NEUTRALITY of plasmas. The fact that we are having these discussions is extremely worrying. We can spin our wheels like this for many, many decades, and what will we get? If there are misconceptions in cosmology, let's deal with them NOW, ONCE AND FOR ALL. We all get ONE SHOT -- it's called life -- to get this right. To be clear, you will NOT get it right by IGNORING or RIDICULING your critics. That's called arrogance.

This should help ...

http://www.thunde...tral.htm
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
One of the biggest obstacles to reaching a cosmological theory which makes sense and lacks internal inconsistencies is the refusal to present speculative theories within the controversial context that these speculations demand. Newcomers who think that they are learning science interpret bold statements as possessing little room for doubt.

From http://www.thunde...inus.htm

"[N]eutron stars violate the 'Island of stability' principal. Plotting the number of neutrons against the number of protons in the nuclei of all elements demonstrates that the ratio is about one-to-one for light elements and one point five-to-one for the heavy ones. An atomic nucleus outside the range will spontaneously decay so that it reaches a stable configuration and remains in equilibrium. If there are too few neutrons the atom will emit protons in order to stabilize and vise-versa. A nucleus composed of neutrons alone would be completely unstable and immediately decay."
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
Re: "Evidence for the accretion model of our solar system? I cannot think of any, I could use some help here."

And yet, accretion into spheres is a NATURAL BYPRODUCT of a current-carrying dusty plasma ...

From http://www.thunde...apter-6/

"Plasmas often contain a high proportion of charged dust grains, which will also be drawn into the filament. Viscous drag between the charged particles and neutral atoms will tend to draw the neutral atoms towards the filament as well. Therefore, current filaments in space will tend accumulate matter in them as a result of the misalignment of the electric field causing the current and the total magnetic field ... If the pinch force is large enough, it can fragment the filament into discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids along the axis of the current. Any matter in the pinch zone would then become compressed into the same form."

Think: planets, ball lightning, hail, Martian blueberries, geodes...
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
Re: ""The volcanic activity is a result of Io being stretched and squeezed as it orbits Jupiter. Io's rock surface bulges up and down by as much as 100 meters during the process." That's the gravitational effect which generates signiicant amounts of internal heat ... That's a good example of how much stronger gravitational effects can be."

For those who are still trying to sort out what to believe, perhaps it's more fair to present BOTH sides to what should in fact be a DEBATE over whether or not these plumes on Io erupt from volcanoes. After all, critical thinking demands that we listen to critics. When we label these observations with their inferences, pretending that there is no debate to be had at all, we approach propaganda. This is NOT teaching people HOW to think. This is TELLING people WHAT to think ...

http://www.thunde...es-3.htm
http://www.thunde...es-4.htm
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
If you get past your obsession and actually read my reply, you would see I was talking about the pulsar, not the plasma when I said it was neutral.


You're right, you were talking about the hypothetical "neutron star", which Hannes so clearly pointed out violates our very basic understanding of particle physics.
I, however, decided to discuss what we do know, that this PLASMA (which is 100% of the visible matter in image) has distinct characteristics that are being ignored by both the scientists and yourself. If you look closely at the image, you will see what can be identified as a plasma formation at the center of the nebula (plasma focus), with this understanding coupled with this info; http://phys.org/n...mos.html
,it will not be too much to make the assumption that all the phenomenon we see in the image is due to EM force with gravity in it's proper place, 39 orders of magnitude less in it's effect.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2012
If all that we did to science reporting was to distinguish inferences from claims, experimental data, observation and speculation, we would eliminate the one enormous obstacle to resolving the numerous enigmas in cosmology and astrophysics today.

But, unfortunately, that is not enough: We also must make sure that our theories for cosmic plasma follow from our observations of laboratory plasmas. This is vital, for plasma is the universe's preferred state for matter.

And even that is not enough to resolve all of the invisible actors in modern cosmology (who, for the record, do all of its heavy lifting), for there is also the refusal to apply longstanding principles of critical thinking to cosmology -- an inherently speculative branch of science which oftentimes strays into the metaphysical. Critical thinking demands questioning assumptions like the notion that plus and minus simply "cancel out" -- by any measure, an archaic claim which defies decades of laboratory plasma science.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2012
Yet, there is more ... Since a theorist can only contemplate that which they have exposed themselves to, there is also a burden to read journals which might challenge mainstream notions of astrophysics -- Namely, IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science, which has published peer-reviewed studies on plasma-based cosmology for many decades now.

And at the end of the day, after we have learned enough about the two worldviews to compare and contrast them in a meaningful way, we are then burdened with actually picking the simplest, most physical explanation. Nobody would probably disagree with that, and yet, time after time, what we get from advocates of conventional theory is that proposing that the cosmic plasma models should be aligned with the laboratory plasma models is somehow not simple or physical enough.

There is a huge difference between pseudoscience and critical thinking. If you can't explain exactly what that difference is, then it's time to rethink your approach.
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
For those who are still trying to sort out what to believe, perhaps it's more fair to present BOTH sides to what should in fact be a DEBATE over whether or not these plumes on Io erupt from volcanoes. After all, critical thinking demands that we listen to critics. When we label these observations with their inferences, pretending that there is no debate to be had at all, we approach propaganda. This is NOT teaching people HOW to think. This is TELLING people WHAT to think ...

http://www.thunde...es-3.htm

Oh, the irony that you bring up Io and DEBATE in light of your extremely poor performance in a debate on Io at http://phys.org/n...ars.html .
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
Re: "Nothing perplexing about it at all, electrical charges come in equal numbers of positive and negative so overall tend to cancel while gravity accumulates"


I'm sorry, but you need to take a closer look at your plasma physics text. Quasi-neutrality does NOT imply a lack of conductivity.


I'm sorry, but you need to take a closer look at my post, at no time did I ever suggest that plasma wasn't conductive.

The term quasi-neutrality was coined for plasmas for this EXACT reason -- in order to differentiate a neutral PLASMA from the neutral state of condensed matter.


Why? The term "neutral" is perfectly well defined, it means an object has no overall charge and the term "conductive" is also well defined. Inventing your own names for existing scientific terms is usually the mark of a crank, you should know better.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2012
Jim Peebles, 1993, in regard to plasma cosmology:

"there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds". In his book he also claimed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted.

That's from the wiki.

It also does not explain the gravitational lensing we see from galaxies. We know the galaxies have mass beyond what we observe because we can observe the amount of light deflection. That's one main reason dark matter and general relativity are prefered today. We can also observe the time dilation in our GPS network. It is not explained by plasma cosmology.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2012
Further, the WMAP mission confirmed that the CMB matches exactly with the big bang/relativity predictions, and plasma cosmology is ruled out by these observations.

http://en.wikiped...iki/WMAP
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2012
The evidence is accumulating for a supernova sun model.

The fact that the sun lacks the angular momentum most theorists think it should have.

The fact the sun radiated less energy in the past, it was cooler.

The fact it has less lithium than it should have and is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium.

And now we know pulsars often have planetoids!

All these can be explained and fit in with our sun being a supernova in the past.

Evidence for the accretion model of our solar system? I cannot think of any, I could use some help here.

ugh, google oliver k manuel neutron repulsion phys.org and read the mountains of evidence against it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
The rate at which pulsars have been observed to pulse is highly suggestive of a relaxation oscillator.


Oh get a grip, relaxation oscillators have very poor jitter while pulsars were more regular than the best atomic clocks until a few years ago.

Cepheids are relaxation oscillators. Since the surface of the star pulsates, the minimum period for the variation we see has to be at least the radius of the star divided by the speed of light. Pulsars are observed with millisecond rates.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2012
For those who are still trying to sort out what to believe, perhaps it's more fair to present BOTH sides to what should in fact be a DEBATE over whether or not these plumes on Io erupt from volcanoes.


Alternatively, the scientific approach would be to send a probe to photograph the events. If there is one thing we have learned of the last two thousand years, it is that reality isn't determined by debate, experiment and observation are all that can be trusted.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
The evidence is accumulating for a supernova sun model.

The fact that the sun lacks the angular momentum most theorists think it should have.

The fact the sun radiated less energy in the past, it was cooler.

The fact it has less lithium than it should have and is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium.

And now we know pulsars often have planetoids!

All these can be explained and fit in with our sun being a supernova in the past.

Evidence for the accretion model of our solar system? I cannot think of any, I could use some help here.

ugh, google oliver k manuel neutron repulsion phys.org and read the mountains of evidence against it.

Against what, the accretion model? I don't buy Oliver's neutron repulsion theory.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
The Planck mission is expected to publish its official results in early 2013. It is similar to the WMAP mission but with much better fidelity and resolution. If WMAP wasn't enough to finally kill plasma cosmology, the Planck mission certainly will be.

http://en.wikiped...cecraft)

Observations from the James Webb telescope should further confirm the validity of the standard model because it can see inside planetary nebulea. However, we still have to get that mission off the ground, so I'm not counting that chicken yet.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
If you get past your obsession and actually read my reply, you would see I was talking about the pulsar, not the plasma when I said it was neutral.


You're right, you were talking about the hypothetical "neutron star", which Hannes so clearly pointed out violates our very basic understanding of particle physics.


Neutron stars were predicted from "our very basic understanding of particle physics" before the were observed. It's easy to criticise with only a lay audience but that sort of pseudoscience wouldn't survive any critical examination.