Hubble sees an aging star wave goodbye

October 12, 2015
Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, Acknowledgement: Serge Meunier

This planetary nebula is called PK 329-02.2 and is located in the constellation of Norma in the southern sky. It is also sometimes referred to as Menzel 2, or Mz 2, named after the astronomer Donald Menzel who discovered the nebula in 1922.

When stars that are around the mass of the sun reach their final stages of life, they shed their outer layers into space, which appear as glowing clouds of gas called planetary nebulae. The ejection of mass in stellar burnout is irregular and not symmetrical, so that planetary nebulae can have very complex shapes. In the case of Menzel 2 the nebula forms a winding blue cloud that perfectly aligns with two stars at its center. In 1999 astronomers discovered that the star at the upper right is in fact the central star of the nebula, and the star to the lower left is probably a true physical companion of the .

For tens of thousands of years the will be cocooned in spectacular clouds of gas and then, over a period of a few thousand years, the gas will fade away into the depths of the universe. The curving structure of Menzel 2 resembles a last goodbye before the star reaches its final stage of retirement as a white dwarf.

Explore further: Image: Hubble sees a dying star's final moments

Related Stories

Image: Hubble sees a dying star's final moments

July 31, 2015

A dying star's final moments are captured in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope. The death throes of this star may only last mere moments on a cosmological timescale, but this star's demise is still quite ...

Image: The ghost of a dying star

August 5, 2015

This extraordinary bubble, glowing like the ghost of a star in the haunting darkness of space, may appear supernatural and mysterious, but it is a familiar astronomical object: a planetary nebula, the remnants of a dying ...

New Hubble image of the Twin Jet Nebula

August 26, 2015

The shimmering colours visible in this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image show off the remarkable complexity of the Twin Jet Nebula. The new image highlights the nebula's shells and its knots of expanding gas in striking ...

The dreadful beauty of Medusa

May 20, 2015

Astronomers using ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile have captured the most detailed image ever taken of the Medusa Nebula. As the star at the heart of this nebula made its transition into retirement, it shed its outer layers ...

Born-again planetary nebula

July 28, 2015

Beneath the vivid hues of this eye-shaped cloud, named Abell 78, a tale of stellar life and death is unfolding. At the centre of the nebula, a dying star – not unlike our Sun – which shed its outer layers on its way to ...

Hubble view of a nitrogen-rich nebula

June 29, 2015

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a planetary nebula named NGC 6153, located about 4,000 light-years away in the southern constellation of Scorpius (The Scorpion).

Recommended for you

Solar minimum surprisingly constant

November 17, 2017

Using more than a half-century of observations, Japanese astronomers have discovered that the microwaves coming from the sun at the minimums of the past five solar cycles have been the same each time, despite large differences ...

Lava or not, exoplanet 55 Cancri e likely to have atmosphere

November 16, 2017

Twice as big as Earth, the super-Earth 55 Cancri e was thought to have lava flows on its surface. The planet is so close to its star, the same side of the planet always faces the star, such that the planet has permanent day ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2015
Missing universality (do not mind what constantly criticize).
The body (star) must have a universal size "when you discard the excess material). The sun does not fall in the big giant stars and can not be cracked in the final stage.
The reasons why something is happens (if it happens?) Must be for every body, equal to, if not be applied alternative form that respects the universality and creates paradoxes and colorfulness.
5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2015
Say what?
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
I continue to question the validity of the science of these objects.

If this is a dying Solar-mass star, it's energy level of the expanding cloud should not be so great as to over-come the entire extra gravity of the other star.

This bears more similarities to Supernovas rather than some gradually expanding death.

Incidentally I figured out where the mass of some SMBH come from, and it is in fact the the death of 1st and 2nd generation stars expanding ejecta clouds, of which they collect from 0 to 2% or so on average.

The Milky Way's SMBH has collected very little matter in comparison to it's true mass of ~250GSol, suggesting most of the stars in the Milky Way are actually First Generation Stars, contrary to standard model. This arises by simple extrapolation, apply the same rules to other galaxies and they are either older*, or they absorbed a higher percent of galactic mass...
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
The most consistent way a SMBH could absorb a higher percent of it's own galactic mass would be if a higher percent of it's own stars have under-gone Supernovas. Explaining the evolution of what happens to the majority of the ejecta from various power levels of Supernovas would take several posts, but suffice it to say that as much as half the material escapes the galaxy, and the ohter half the material gets captured by one object or another inside the galaxy, eventually, even if it initially gets outside the galactic disk (typically above or below). If you draw some concept sketches on paper and use point models t show where ejecta is moving, then draw vectors to the SMBH and 4 cardinal directions from the SMBH, you see that material ejected above or below the disk is closer to the center of mass and center of gravity (not identical btw) than is material ejected laterally along the rotational plane.

So this material falls in a parabola into the core...
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
However, not all material falling into the core ends up directly inside the SMBH, some of it is captured by other galactic hub stars, and some of it gets blown away again by different types of stellar or black hole winds.

Since the Milky Way's SMBH is a paltry 1/50,000th of the mass of it's host galaxy, while other galaxies' SMBH are as much as 10% of the mass of the host galaxy, I interpret this to mean that the Milky Way, and especially it's constituent stars, is much younger than most other galaxies, and therefore most of the stars in the Milky Way are in fact First Generation Stars....relatively young First Generation Stars.

We can see this because so many of the Stars in the Milky Way are blue (young) while so many stars in other galaxies are red (old)...and here's the kicker, since those galaxies are billions of LY means their stars were already very old...billions of years ago...1ga, 2ga, 7ga, galaxy was already "dead"...
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
The discovery that time cannot be tracked precisely for fast moving objects, and my own discovery that light cannot penetrate the same objects in different reference frames moving fast with respect to one another...could throw yet another monkey wrench in this system...

But under the "standard model" of the propagation of time and light, we are left but no solution except to conclude that a "Red Galaxy" which is observed at 7Gly was already dead ~10.5 Billion years ago*. Under Hubble Expansion it takes 10.5 Billion years for light to cross a line in space which is initially 7 Billion Light Years long.

Thus the galaxy observed to be 7Gly Distant died before the Milky Way even existed, or right as the Milky Way was first forming. The distant galaxy has a massive black hole because it has had much more time (10 billion years) to accumulate ejecta from it's own intra-galactic Stellar Ejecta, of whatever kind.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
The Milky Way's age is unkown, but is believed to be 10 or 11 Billion years and most of it's stars are still blue.

So How old was the already "Red" galaxy, when that light left it 10.5Billion years ago, if the Milky Way is 10 or 11 Billion years old and is still blue (young).?!

This suggests the Universe is more than 22Billion years old at a minimum, just by adding the 10.5Gy travel time of light to the minimum age that a "dead" galaxy could be.....Assuming the scientists estimate of the Milky Way's age is correct.

This provides yet another apparent contradiction of the interpretation of what the CMB is and things like re-ionization and so-called "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis".

Apparently, these things happened much farther back in time than is currently realized.


Something is wrong with the physics (time keeping problem, Relativistic light source problem, etc,).

using another method, I calculated the age of the universe to be at least double the accepted value.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
Using the hypothesis that the Sun is a First Generation Star, and starting with an initial composition of nearly 100% hydrogen, I concluded that it could be several times older than it is currently believed to be. In this hypothesis, the Planets are assumed to have formed from a Cataclysm of the Sun itself, when it reached densities sufficient to start fusing some Helium and Carbon, which it currently does have, contrary to what you will find in an encyclopedia or text. The calculated core temperature and pressure exceeds that needed to fuse some Helium isotopes and exceeds that needed to burn some parts of the CNO cycle.

I propose that whenever this transition occurred, the Sun experienced a brief, miniature supernova-like event, creating some heavy metals and a cataclysmic ejection of material, which later became the planets in stable orbits due to conservation of angular momentum.

This model makes more sense than a model based on a cloud capturing foreign metals.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015

This would also explain the long-term stability of the oort cloud, and why inner SS objects are made of heavy things, while outer SS objects are made of light things, and all have perfectly harmonic angular momenta to sustain multi-billion year orbits.

The SS model I propose also makes more sense when observing "Planetary Nebula" (which modern scientists claim have nothing to do with actual planets, but s an unfortunate naming artifact,)....

A cooling/dying energy source does not suddenly blow off it's outer shells....unless it somehow gained access to a new, more energy dense energy source, either a new isotope involved in fusion, or ...something else..., and blew itself apart.

The normal "Red Giant" phase model taught in text and Encyclopedia is flawed for several geometric reasons I have presented untold times in the past.

I thereby conclude that these structures are formed from explosions similar to supernovas, but are just "weaker".
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
In another theory, I proposed that the Sun could be something else...and we wouldn't be able to tell by direct observation...

If a Star forms from Water (Nevermind where it came from for the moment)...the introduction of water is useful because the electrical properties and gravitational properties of water's partial charges and hydrgogen bonds are useful for binding space gas and dust to form larger objects...

so a star forms from's now ~89% Oxygen by mass, and ~11% Hydrogen by mass.

The Sun's core is several times the density of Iron. The outer parts which we can see are mostly hydrogen and Helium, but that means nothing. the inside could be made of anything.

If the Sun is a Second Generation star, Oxygen is one of the most heavily released elements in Supernovas, based on composite imagery of many supernovas I have seen.

Look how much oxygen makes up the Earth and Moon: Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum, about 40% oxygen.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
There is no sensible reason why the object at the center of gravity would be made of the LIGHTEST materials if this solar system were a second generation solar system.

If this solar system is a second generation solar system, then the Sun is actually between 30% and 90% Oxygen by mass, depending on how much Silicon and Aluminum it captured.

There is no good reason to assume that the (Second Generation) Sun would have captured different elemental ratios than the average of the Planets, Comets and Asteroids, and when you take into account heat flow and thermodynamics, the denser atoms should have been more likely to "sink" toward the Sun (and we have evidence in the Terrestrial planets, their moons, and the Asteroids vs Lighter-element based gas giants a bit farther out).

What is all of this saying?

Regardless of how the Sun formed, it appears that it now has much more Oxygen and metal in the core than the Experts believe...
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
All of these stable molecular cloud components are stable and neutral:

This means they have nothing to attract to one another except gravity...fat chance since any radiation from the forming proto-star would heat them and blow them away vs this pathetic gravity alone, stopping growth.

So EM charge is needed to make the molecules stick together, or metals are needed to make the gases react and make more massive molecules (but that only happens at the right temperature)...

So what makes all this stick together? Water.

It's neutral and stable, but unlike the other neutral compounds, Water is asymmetrical, giving it a partial change...which is enough to bind other compounds to itself...

IN the Bible, Water is the first thing that was created; Dry land (other elements) were created later.

The science supports this notion, in principle, because only water can cause a molecular cloud to continue collapsing to form planets and stars.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
So when you look at this planetary nebula photograph, you have to ask yourself some questions...

Is this really a dying main sequence star?
Or is this a failing proto-star, which has blown away it's nursery molecular cloud, elements having not bound together to make more massive objects so that gravity could take over.
Is it a young star having the hiccups, or is it a dying old star?

How did this thing form?

Present Composition =/= true age indicator, because you don't know the initial composition.

How fast is the cloud expanding? Why did the companion star capture so little of the expanding cloud, If it's the slow "expanding red giant" type death even, even though much of it must have hit it head on, and much of it must have passed right by it.

The "gradually expanding, cooling, dying star" model contradicts the laws of thermodynamics and needs to be discarded.

Whatever the case, a new theory of Planetary Nebulae is needed..
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
When stars that are around the mass of the sun reach their final stages of life, they shed their outer layers into space, which appear as glowing clouds of gas called planetary nebulae

Assuming the dying star did not suddenly have a supernova-like event, fusing a new element instantly and catastrophically....the normal explanation of how this alleged event in Sun-sized objects happens is nonsense.

I challenge any astronomer to create a computer model which can replicate this behavior using ALL of the known laws of physics, and starting with the alleged, supposed composition of the Sun in the Standard Model.

I have shown ni the past that this is bunk.
The fuel transition to Helium and CNO is already under-way in the Sun, if the alleged composition is correct, and the transition is smooth enough that no red-giant catastrophe will ever happen.

I challenge anyone to make supercomputer model using physics to make the sun go red giant: FAIL.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
Oh yeah, if you were to model alternate compositions for starting, you would need to model anywhere from 5 to 20 billion years of development. Given that the Universe is likely twice as old as the text-book value, Some Yellow Dwarfs and White Dwarfs may be many billions of years older than they are believed to be, therefore if you model it's first 5 billion years and don't see behavior you thought you would see, in some cases it could be because the real star potentially evolves much more slowly than previously thought for stars at or around the Sun's mass...

For example, the CNO cycle has lower energy density, therefore, assumin the Star has enough mass to work that cycle, it might take several billion years before the star reaches peak temperature, as you have to actually warm all that material from ~8 kelvin all the way up to as much as 100 million kelvin (core) , and it would take some time for a stable radiative balance to appear.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
The above holds true if the postulates of SR and GR are true.

However, recent development of my more detailed, specific compositional thought experiment with the Prism and visible light calls into question some of the postulates of both SR and GR.

Namely, Moving "Fast Enough" in one reference frame erases certain events in the other reference frame, replacing with alternate.

or produces a "pseudo-double-slit" scenario where more than one past timeline can merge into a single time line with conflicting past events....I hope we don't have to go there, because this is in itself a disaster for the study of physics and cosmology.

So if you remove some of the postulates, astrophysics has to be totaly re-examined.

If you don't remove the postulates, then past events "out there" for fast moving objects have multiple conflicting histories, but the same present, and both histories would necessarily need to be interpreted as equally valid...which is absurd.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
If you remove (or modify) one or more postulates of SR or GR, OR keep the postulates and find new formulas that work better?!? under the same assumptions; Why does GPS work, after all?

So whatever the case, astronomy/cosmology faces major hurdles for ANY attempt to improve SR and GR, which definitely need to be improved.

Distance and Velocity of distant objects:
Beyond Parallax range (which is why I've suggested a multi-probe deep space experiment tracking reference stars apparent motion against the background as the probes move, and triangulating their apparent postion from multiple probes, a "control" vs the Relativistic Doppler Shift method of range finding.

Composition of objects
True wavelength/frequency of EM at point of origin: time keeping problem, multi history paradox.

Hubble Constant
What is speed of light if we can't track time? If gravity accelerates light, and we can't time high acceleration,
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
If high acceleration effects time keeping, then how does that effect the standard interpretation of the Dark Matter and Dark Energy phenomena?

If high relative velocity can produce a totally, contradictory history in one reference frame compared to another, as I have shown with the Prism thought experiment, and if for Sake of Argument, we assume the postulates and formulas of SR and GR are correct, and this is "real" for a the moment, then how do we study distant phenomena in the universe? This makes DM and DE look like baby stuff, because every object moving really fast (Cosmic rays, anything in an accretion disk) would have multiple valid histories in the same space-time, and all of them would be correct. This is even more ridiculous than the "Many Worlds" interpretation of QM.

So somehow this has to be resolved.

We need better/more postulates to the ultimate theory replacing SR and GR, and the equations must be even more advanced.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
Triangulation Paradox.

If Length Contraction is real, then the angle a moving telescope is facing is different in the moving reference frame than it is in the stationary reference frame, which is relevant for all space telescopes and space probes/orbiters.

Given how precise the angular measurements are needed to be when making parallax measurements, this means that relativistic effects (if SR is true) are actually big enough to be important in parallax measurements of distant objects position, distance, and angular size.

Parallax is not really used much in modern times, because they just rely on the doppler shift method and the cosmic red shift method. It's always a bad thing to rely on one method of measurement, particularly when it relies on postulates which have not actually been prove to work for speeds relevant to the objects being measured.

In other words, Astronomy/Cosmology is in a real quagmire and has been for a century.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
I don't care, whoever put a "1" on me.

In a few generations or centuries, when humans finally figure this stuff out and have a system of equations that is like 10 times better, they will look back on the "Settled Science" people, the existing Paradigm, and the "Forum Mafia" people, and the administrators who ban anyone who proposes an alternate theory or even suggests a flaw in Relativity...

They will look back on you narrow-minded people and see you as ignorant as witches and Pre-reason era Greek pagans, who thought the Earth rode around on turtles and elephants and stuff.

Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, Tyson will be acknowledged for their efforts, but they will be viewed as among the worst utter FOOLS for the way they treat the broader intellectual community, as will their ilk who frequent all physics boards.

The moment you stop questioning "Settled Science" is the moment you stop learning.
1 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
Whoever it is who makes the next major leap in developing a better Relativity Theory, or a better QM theory, or explaining what the hell DM and DE really are...

They are going to have to be someone who questions everything, takes nothing for granted, reworks and tweaks "settled science" postulates and traditions from the ground up....and none of you people will believe it when they publish it either. You sad-sack losers will call the guy/gal (or group) "Cranks", and ban them from your forums, and write hate mail.
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2015
How funny... if someone have to ever split a large comment on 3 parts to get it posted here, there is a warning and a wait to avoid "flooding"...
Yet the @sshole can flood the articles through dispersing comments in time, allowed by the countless hours of "time to waste" he has at its disposition.

How funny... "just put them on ignore" some suggest... then you get a summary of troll's activity rather than a 'clean' thread...

When will a mess like this be properly cleaned? Vermin's poo stinks...
1 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2015
Say what?

Objections and solutions is a lot and do not belong here. See some of the published articles on: The style of writing articles is a provocation, I want you goods entertainment.
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2015
Thanx Returners! I did enjoy reading it as it is a lot more entertaining than the boring article...
1 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2015
Thanx Returners! I did enjoy reading it as it is a lot more entertaining than the boring article...

You are welcome.

There is so much that I do not know, but I know that THEY don't know either. They just think they know.

They are "unconscious incompetent".

That's a pretty bad place to be intellectually.

the can't give a rational explanation of why an object which is supposedly cooling, losing it's "energy" source, should gradually expand to light years in size over time.

WE know from elementary experience that most things shrink when they cool, and even the odd-ball water only expands a tad whenever it freezes.
5 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2015 produces a "pseudo-double-slit" scenario where more than one past timeline can merge into a single time line with conflicting past events....I hope we don't have to go there, because this is in itself a disaster for the study of physics and cosmology.
Clearly you speak from experience.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.