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

[sjw40364]

Here is my question. If 96% of the universe is composed of Dark matter and Dark Energy, and we know nothing about it, then is not standard cosmology basing all their theories on 4% of the universe that we barely understand? This means if we understood everything about the universe perfectly, we would only know how 4% of it works, yet they are 100% sure their theories are correct. 100% and 4% seem like two different numbers to me. If they only understand 4% (max), then they can only be sure their theories are 4% accurate (max). Since another 90% of this 4% still remains a mystery, one could say we understand maybe 1% of the universe. So with 1% knowledge of how the universe works they will explain to you how it all started and are so sure they are correct, all other theories will be discarded. Science at its top form.

[phyllotaxis]

How dare you bring common sense into this highly speculative discussion!

[viscount aero]

Here is my question. If 96% of the universe is composed of Dark matter and Dark Energy, and we know nothing about it, then is not standard cosmology basing all their theories on 4% of the universe that we barely understand? This means if we understood everything about the universe perfectly, we would only know how 4% of it works, yet they are 100% sure their theories are correct. 100% and 4% seem like two different numbers to me. If they only understand 4% (max), then they can only be sure their theories are 4% accurate (max). Since another 90% of this 4% still remains a mystery, one could say we understand maybe 1% of the universe. So with 1% knowledge of how the universe works they will explain to you how it all started and are so sure they are correct, all other theories will be discarded. Science at its top form.

LOL!

[viscount aero]

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

excellent points

[celeste]

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

quantauniverse, I believe you are right that the disc in question is temporarily aligned edge-on to our line of sight. Let's consider two other facts: First, we are looking nearly edge on to the Alpha and Beta Centauri orbital plane (only 4 ly away, but in the same general direction as the the "disappearing disk"). Second, precession causes earth's spin to occasionally align with Centaurus (The celestial equator was once and will be again nearly edge on to Centaurus,home of the "disappearing disk").
If the mainstream is right, all these are local effects. The earth precesses around one axis due to gravitational tugs from the sun and moon. The planet forming disk is shaped by accretion around some other axis. The Alpha-Beta Centauri pair continue orbiting in whatever plane they were formed. Just a coincidence if any of them line up.
If,however, there are galactic scale magnetic fields that control all this,look what happens. The earth,Alpha Centauri,and even the planet forming disk ~450 ly away are all in the same galactic neighborhood. Galactic scale field lines are effectively parallel over these distances. If earth precesses around these field lines, we should be able to look out across those lines and see objects orbiting nearly edge on, and precessing to where they may be exactly edge on at two points in their precessional cycles.

[seasmith]

~
Nice to see folks boldly tying in earthly precessions with evidence of galactic helicoidal trajectories ...

[sjw40364]

And as we know, edge on affects things quite a bit. It is because in order to apply both observations to gravitational theory they must admit mass calculations are off by orders of magnitude. It is much easier to explain it away as sucked into the star or whatever than to bring up unwanted discoveries that show the theories to be in error.
http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe ... right.html

Coupled with:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2287

[quantauniverse]

I believe once the disc becomes faintly visible again, it'll become fully visible in about two more years, which is the reverse process. How long until it starts to reappear depends a lot on when the viewing alignment spin axis orientation of the disc changes, which shouldn't take more than a few more years, assuming that such a precise alignment is brief yet common for a system that is so close to earth only 470 light years away. What this would mean is that space-time is far more warped locally near earth by magnetic fields, than the tiny local amounts believed by phony gravity theories like frame-dragging interpretations that analog magnetic fields of spinning bodies. It also would mean that planetary discs are orbiting by electromagnetic forces, and they better read this thread and start looking for it to reappear soon. Saturn's rings get thinner and thicker without any kind of alignment, and don't remain invisible for very long.

[Oracle_911]

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 there is a knife a pretty big one, in our economic system actually its called Damocles sword and hung over our heads, one way or another our economic system will collapse, and shortly after will collapse "modern science", they won't get government fundings.

[quantauniverse]

The scientist Carl Melis who discovered the disappearing disk kindly replied back to my email question. He exactly wrote:
"We had considered a scenario like you propose. The best evidence against such an alignment is that if the disk were perfectly edge-on such that it blocked out its own light, then it would have to also block out the starlight as well. As shown in the supplemental section to the Nature paper, the star has not shown any variations in brightness."

[nick c]

It makes me wonder if this is a secondary, torus current that moved from a glow-discharge to a dark-discharge mode?

A plasma that has moved from glow mode to dark mode; this proposition has my vote

[sjw40364]

Yah, my favorite theory so far too.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07 ... is-hidden/

[celeste]

The scientist Carl Melis who discovered the disappearing disk kindly replied back to my email question. He exactly wrote:
"We had considered a scenario like you propose. The best evidence against such an alignment is that if the disk were perfectly edge-on such that it blocked out its own light, then it would have to also block out the starlight as well. As shown in the supplemental section to the Nature paper, the star has not shown any variations in brightness."

quantauniverse, sorry, somehow I missed your post until today. I'm not convinced Carl Melis is correct here. Does anyone have the estimates of the disks radius? I'm more interested in the internal radius of the disk? It seems like no matter what (disk going edge on, dark/glow plasma,dethermalization), the redshift spread they use for disk rotation is important . If they do have the data for the disk, it would be interesting to see how those redshifts are explained in the plasma glow model. If they don't have the data, it would be interesting to see how Melis is so confident that it is not a disk edge on. Remember, it's the disks inner diameter that is important. For a disk of given outer diameter,the larger the disks inner diameter, the more dimming we have for the disk before it dims the star at all, and the smaller the percentage of dimming for the star when the disk finally does cross the star.

[Influx]

Electrostatic cooling?

[viscount aero]

reply to:

"The scientist Carl Melis who discovered the disappearing disk kindly replied back to my email question. He exactly wrote:
"We had considered a scenario like you propose. The best evidence against such an alignment is that if the disk were perfectly edge-on such that it blocked out its own light, then it would have to also block out the starlight as well. As shown in the supplemental section to the Nature paper, the star has not shown any variations in brightness."
------------
Why would it have to block out the starlight? A paper-thin dust lane such as this would become lost in the glare of the star were the dust now edge-on. I don't see ruling that out at this point. I am imagining that it will take years hence to see if/when the dust "reappears." Until then it is a mystery indeed.

The other explanations for it appear to be nonsense to me:
from: http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress. ... as-formed/

they posit: "Researchers have offered at least three potential mechanisms for the disappearance. One might be runaway planetary accretion. It is generally believed that the condensation of such dust particle around a star into a planet occurs over long periods — hundreds of thousands of years. In this case, it could have been accelerated by some unknown force, occurring over just a few years."

That is absolutely false. Not only that, it highly indicates yet another piece of evidence to falsify so-called core-accretion theory. Even if they had the means to, they will find no planet there suddenly "accreted."

they suggest: "The star is too far away to observe any potential planet, however. A second possibility is that, for some reason, the dust has all fallen into the star itself, perhaps as a result of the star’s gravity or some external force."

That is highly unlikely, to zero. Have the ringed planets shown their rings to just suddenly fall into the planets? No. Has the asteroid belt just fallen into the Sun? No. And if the rings were to fall into the planet or Sun, what is the mechanism for this?

they continue: "The third explanation might be that the dust particles are so small that the constant stream of light from the star has ejected them all into space, where they have cooled off. “Many astronomers feel uncomfortable with the suggested explanations for the disappearance of the dust because each of them has nontraditional implications,” said co-author Inseok Song of the University of Georgia. “But my hope is that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form.” -LA Times

They go from having the dust "falling into the star" to now it may all have been "ejected into space" LOL. Ejected into space? From what? I say this is a cosmic mystery --very cool!