willo wrote:I also came across a news article about this this morning:
It makes me wonder if this is a secondary, torus current that moved from a glow-discharge to a dark-discharge mode?
Here is the article. My rebuttals/remarks are in RED:
Disappearing space dust belt baffles boffins
cute title :)
Did star spit out planet after inhaling galatic powder?
By Brid-Aine Parnell • Get more from this author
Posted in Space, 5th July 2012 10:47 GMT
Boffins were bewildered when a star's dust belt mysteriously disappeared, but they now think that the vanishing fragments could have used up in some superfast planet formation.
They begin right away setting up the speculation that the reader must subliminally accept as being true anyway. Notice the reaching and fantasy phraseology: "...used up in some superfast planet formation."
TYC in its formerly dusty state. Credit: Gemini Observatory/AURA artwork by Lynette Cook
The artist's rendering convinces the reader/viewer that planets are formed and "accrete" in a dusty disk about a star when no evidence of this happening actually exists. If anything, the contrary exists: debris and dust around a star remains debris and dust. Asteroid belts remain lifeless and cold asteroid belts. Rings of dust remain this way.
Researchers had spotted the cloud of dust circling the young star in the Scorpius-Centaurus stellar nursery in data gathered by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite while it was was surveying the sky back in 1983.
It would usually take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years for the amount of dust orbiting the lengthily named TYC 8241 2652 1 (we're going to call it TYC for short) to dissipate, so when the boffins saw the star again in 2008 using the mid-infrared imager at the Gemini South Observatory in Chile, they weren't surprised to see things were just the same as 25 years ago.
What if dust in some systems does not dissipate? What if the dust remains there indefinitely? Where would the dust go anyway and what is the causal agent for its alleged dissipation? Has the dissipation ever been observed? If not then why do they assume this happens? What if the dust is ejecta from the star?
But when TYC was viewed from the same telescope in 2009, something weird had happened: the infrared emission, by which the scientists could infer the presence of the dust, had dropped by two-thirds. By 2010, when NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) glimpsed the celestial body, the dust was almost all gone.
"It's like the classic magician's trick: Now you see it, now you don't," lead author Carl Melis, a postdoc at UC San Diego, said. "Only in this case we're talking about enough dust to fill an inner solar system, and it really is gone."
They assume right away that the dust itself is gone but not that the infrared emission has ceased only.
After checking again with the Japanese AKARI telescope and the ESA's Photodetector Array Camera and Spectrometer at the Herschel Space Observatory, just to be on the safe side, the boffins set about scratching their heads to figure out where the dust might have vanished to.
More about how the dust itself is gone, not that the infra-red emission has merely ceased.
Scientists have long hypothesised that planetary formation takes place after hundreds of thousands of years of minute particles clumping together through weak electrostatic interactions and eventually gravitational forces.
Yes and this hypothesis has more going against it than for it.
But this observation could mean that planets can actually be whipped up in no time if the conditions are right.
LOL!!! THey actually consider this to be a real possibility!! H HA AHAAHAHAha ahhaha hAHh a ha hAhahA HAHaha
"If what we observed is related to runaway growth, then our finding suggests that planet formation is very fast and very efficient," said Inseok Song, the study's co-author and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Georgia.
LOL!! They actually do believe this is possible !! AH AHAHAHAhah A AHA haha HAhahah AHAahahA HAaaa
"The implication is that if the conditions are right around a star, planet formation can be nearly instantaneous from an astronomical perspective."
Sure it can but not via core accretion theory. What they say contradicts core accretion theory --while keeping the theory!
Unfortunately, the star is 450 light years away so the boffins can't see any planet that might have formed around TYC... so this leaves the disappearance of the dust open to other theories interpretations as well.
The dust might have been sucked back into the star, effectively eliminating planet-building material, which would mean the formation of new worlds is less likely than previously thought.
Or the star could have spat the dust out, expelling it from orbit with the constant stream of photons emanating from the sun, pushing the teeny-tiny dust particles into each other and away.
LOL! They're still on about how the dust "vanished." At least they entertain the idea of the star creating ejecta dust (even though it has nothing to do with this particular observation).
"Many astronomers may feel uncomfortable with the suggested explanations for the disappearance of the dust because each of them has non-traditional implications," Song said,
Oh? what the fck does that mean: "non-traditional implications' ? Hmmm? Tell me just what does that really mean? Well. I'll tell you what that really means, buddy!
"but my hope that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form."
Oh? It is his hope? Is it really? Somehow that sounds like glib and disingenuous lip service to me. He hopes this will bring us all closer to a "true" understanding of how planets form?! Oh yeah? Well I will tell you --NO it won't --not from you! These people will forget about this story and incident and just move along and keep their golden turd theories!
The study has been published in Nature. ®