Scientist shock:"planet-forming disk disappeared in 2 years"

[viscount aero]

I also came across a news article about this this morning:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/05 ... isappears/

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. ®

[viscount aero]

I also came across a news article about this this morning:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/05 ... isappears/

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 for core accretion theory!! 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. ®

[viscount aero]

I also came across a news article about this this morning:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/05 ... isappears/

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 !! Notice how they just won't kill the whole "planet forming" idea here. Planets MUST BE, MUST HAVE BEEN BORN HERE AT ALL COSTS -- H ah HhhaahaaAH 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. ®

[kell1990]

You know what bugs me though isn't the theories these people espouse- science is about exploring possibilities-- it's the uniform assertion- no, command- that the statements like these - the black holes and gravity wells and redshift distance calculations and time dimensions and light behaviors etc... are FACT, which buttress and confirm all their other underlying FACTS (standard model), revealing that everything they KNOW is FACT, and that what they don't know is IMPLIED by their FACTS- and therefore can safely be declared as Facts-To-Be.

And if you don't believe them? Or even present alternative explanations?

You are simply stupid.

You're like someone who says the sky isn't blue-- or more exactly, that the sky isn't the sky!

Because, of course, everyone KNOWS that LEGITIMATE science has ALREADY discovered the correct path (standard model), and you just aren't smart enough to have wised up and acknowledged the(ir) truth.

It's almost as though these propaganda releases via academia and media have specifically fashioned science to be so confusing, counter-intuitive, and mysterious that many curious, smart minds are dissuaded from looking in any further than High-school level instruction.
They are told from the start: we (Big Science) already know 96% of everything- and we're now at the hard part: mathematically forcing and stretching the last 4% to cover the bizarre and misbehaving infinities that we can't seem to explain- those which in some cases flatly contradict what we already KNOW to be true.
So it's just a big funny mystery to solve--figuring out that trickster 4%. And that'll cost trillions to model. Fuuuuun, right?

They want a public audience- NOT a public interest. You can watch in amazement--but don't dare interrupt the adults with your comments about the man visible behind the curtain. You be entertained without questions like a good tax slave. The thinly disguised sentiment oozes from their religious adulation over Higgs God particles and infinite masses in non-existent points. It's a show. An act.

Moving on, note that I mentioned curious minds above -- not just smart ones-- there are plenty of 'smart' people in the sciences...but truly curious minds?
I wager there are shockingly few expansive, creative, curious intellects active in official science. They call BS far too quickly.
Those that are desired and accepted are like smart rats, robotically following mazes built -sometimes on the fly- by previous rats hailed as titans of the paradigm.
It never occurs to any of them to stand up and look around the room to see what else might show them the way. In fact, they are violently hostile to those that rock their intricate little card table.

Sheesh-- is it any wonder the sciences are stagnant, inbred, confrontational, and insular?
Casual observers (that don't dig for competing truths) see the sciences as tarot card readers with grant money.
At least tarot card readers make an honest living.

I've talked enough on this-- forgive the length.
On the bright side, the knowledge that is being discovered and reinforced by real innovators and researchers will bury them all in the embarrassment file of history

One of my favorite interests is economics, particularily macroeconomics. If you think that cosmology is complicated, try navigating your way through modern macroeconomics. As most of you probably have noticed, the economic community hasn't fared very well over the past 5 years or so. Totally missed the meltdown, only to try to catch up after the fact. So it's amusing to me to watch some of the major voices in macroeconomics try to latch on to the discovery of this new particle, as if some of the glow might rub off on them.

For instance, see this: http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... boson.html. If you go there look around and follow some of the other links which try to associate the author with this recent discovery. I don't know whether to laugh or cry; it is pathetic at any estimation.

Economics is a very complicated subject, because it involves the behavior of humans. Most of the economic community is wrong, and they know they are wrong, because reality does not match their predictions, but they don't know how to get out of it, because they are hide-bound by certain theories which are unchallengable. Sound familar?

Particle physics and cosmology are relatively simpler. The subjects don't have this fickle human trait. They do what they do like they are supposed to do them.

I continue to hope that there are enough people, armed with the right kind of knives, that can cut through this Gordian knot

[viscount aero]

One of my favorite interests is economics, particularily macroeconomics. If you think that cosmology is complicated, try navigating your way through modern macroeconomics. As most of you probably have noticed, the economic community hasn't fared very well over the past 5 years or so. Totally missed the meltdown, only to try to catch up after the fact. So it's amusing to me to watch some of the major voices in macroeconomics try to latch on to the discovery of this new particle, as if some of the glow might rub off on them.

For instance, see this: http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... boson.html. If you go there look around and follow some of the other links which try to associate the author with this recent discovery. I don't know whether to laugh or cry; it is pathetic at any estimation.

Economics is a very complicated subject, because it involves the behavior of humans. Most of the economic community is wrong, and they know they are wrong, because reality does not match their predictions, but they don't know how to get out of it, because they are hide-bound by certain theories which are unchallengable. Sound familar?

Particle physics and cosmology are relatively simpler. The subjects don't have this fickle human trait. They do what they do like they are supposed to do them.

I continue to hope that there are enough people, armed with the right kind of knives, that can cut through this Gordian knot

well-said, funny, and true

[quantauniverse]

The observer's line of sight, alignment, direction, viewing angle...is entirely being neglected to explain the truth. The thin flat dusty solar system disk, was fully bright in 2008, then only 1/3 as bright in 2009, and without light in 2010. I'm really surprised nobody else so far I know of hasn't explained what happened. The spinning rotating dusty solar system protoplanetary disc, is temporarily ALIGNED EDGE-ON with our line of sight viewing from earth. The disc is thin, flat, and dusty and from 450 LY distance, there is no way to detect infrared light reflecting off the edges. Galaxies also have a thin dusty region in their disc, that does this to their appearance. NASA and ESA have previously stated themselves that galaxies are part of a unified model dependent upon observer alignment, and that blazars, quasars, and seyfert galaxies are really the same phenomena dependent on observer location! Last week NASA says that two galaxies aren't interacting, but we see that they are. Now they can't admit that the disc is still really there, just their telescopes can no longer see it, because they believe in gravity interpretations requiring that this dusty disc be spherical shaped and orbits by gravity instead of by electromagnetism filaments flat sheets having currents and magnetic fields under superconductive states conditions favorable. See this story at
http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2 ... ually.html

[sjw40364]

Today's TPOD by Stephen Smith addresses this and I find the EU explanation reasonable.

Around the loci of stellar z-pinches, toroidal plasmoids can get “pumped” with energy. Excess input power might push them into a “glow mode” discharge. In other words, the dusty plasma ring around TYC 8241 2652 was probably electrically energized, and not just heated up by stellar radiation.

Electric stars aren’t begotten in nebular clouds, their progenitor is charge separation. Everything we see in the Universe is ionized to some degree, therefore it is plasma. According to Electric Universe theory, the definition of “plasma” is not the conventional one of “ionized gas.” It is that confused apprehension of plasma that falls back on ideas about gas behavior and thermal effects. Gravity, density, compression, and mechanical phenomena give way to plasma physics.

It is the capacitive, resistive, and inductive electrical environment in and around stars that causes the materials to change in brightness. Therefore, the plasma torus generated by TYC 8241 2652 is most likely no longer energetic enough to be visible to our instruments. It is possible that the falloff of electric power caused the ring to switch off.

I quite agree it is most likely a plasma torus that no longer receives enough current to maintain glow mode.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07 ... is-hidden/

[Corona]

The star - designated TYC 8241 2652 and a young analog of our Sun - only a few years ago displayed all of the characteristics of hosting a solar system in the making. Now, it has transformed completely: very little of the warm dusty material thought to originate from collisions of rocky planets is apparent - it's a mystery that has astronomers baffled.

Carl Melis of the University of California, San Diego, led the discovery team, whose report is published in the July 5th issue of the journal Nature. He said, "It's like the classic magician's trick: now you see it, now you don't. Only in this case we're talking about enough dust to fill an inner solar system and it really is gone!"

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Plane ... s_999.html

[nick c]

Here is a TPoD on the subject,
Seeking What Is Hidden:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07 ... is-hidden/

[viscount aero]

"...Norm Murray, Director of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, who was not part of the research group, said, "The history of astronomy has shown that events that are not predicted and hard to explain can be game-changers" --that's absolute BS; this will not be a "game changer" to the establishment science community whatsoever. The remark is disingenuous. No mention of the invalidity of core accretion theory is hinted in the article.

[303vegas]

what i don't like about this is the artist's interpretation they use to accompany such articles. it gives a misleading impression of how things are. some actual photographic evidence no matter how weedy it might be would help.

[StevenJay]

what i don't like about this is the artist's interpretation they use to accompany such articles.it gives a misleading impression of how things are. some actual photographic evidence no matter how weedy it might be would help.

Heh - which is why it's the perfect accompaniment to their own misled impression of how things are.

Back in May of '08, I put up a couple of images in this thread in response to the nonsensical image used to illustrate the Church of Mainstream Cosmology's nonsensical claims (as well as my impression of the artist commissioned to do it).

I gotta keep laughing at this crap, cuz it's the only thing keeping me from going out and starting a riot.

[viscount aero]

It will be funny when the "lights are turned back on" and the dust suddenly "reappears." I'd like to see what they have to say about that as they insist and assume that the dust has vanished altogether.

[viscount aero]

And their continued insistence on calling it a "planet-forming disk" is the fallacy of the century. Where are these planets being formed?

[MattEU]

Hi,

Gary Gilligan in his God King Scenario suggested that after a catastrophe event in our solar system we had lots of dust, debris and a ring of dust that was around for a short period and then disappeared ... http://www.gks.uk.com/hathor-isis-egyptian/