"It's a gas" (Hubble looks at a supernova)

[FS3]

It almost sounds poetic when NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is watching the filamentary remnants of a supernova caused by a stellar explosion that allegedly occurred more than 1,000 years ago...

A delicate ribbon of gas floats eerily in our galaxy. A contrail from an alien spaceship? A jet from a black-hole?...

...This image is a composite of hydrogen-light observations taken with Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys in February 2006 and Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 observations in blue, yellow-green, and near-infrared light taken in April 2008. The supernova remnant, visible only in the hydrogen-light filter was assigned a red hue in the Heritage color image.

Here you may watch the bigger caption:
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2008 ... ll_jpg.jpg

That segment above ist part of the whole Full-shell Image of SN 1006 (pic below) and covers app. 5 light years length.


Since 1998 the filament that is described as a "hot gas" has moved notably:
http://heritage.stsci.edu/2008/22/supplemental.html

The size of the remnant implied that the blast wave from the supernova had expanded at nearly 20 million miles per hour over the nearly 1,000 years since the explosion occurred....

...A tiny portion of this filament is revealed in detail by the Hubble observation. The twisting ribbon of light seen by Hubble corresponds to locations where the expanding blast wave from the supernova is now sweeping into very tenuous surrounding gas.

The hydrogen gas heated by this fast shock wave emits radiation in visible light. Hence, the optical emission provides astronomers with a detailed “snapshot” of the actual position and geometry of the shock front at any given time. Bright edges within the ribbon correspond to places where the shock wave is seen exactly edge on to our line of sight...

Although I am always impressed by those "shock-and awe-fronts" in space, I cant help that we do see the typical filamets of a twisted Birkeland current...

FS3

[FS3]

The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, comprises the most fundamental law of physics. In this case - the hydrogen gas is said to be "heated by the fast shock wave of the supernova". But according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics it would be quite surprising if that bright, sharply defined edges within the ribbon would have preserved its "sharp" contours - as seen in 1998 because that filament of "hot gas" has moved notably since then.

If it would have been a simple "gas", and not a plasma's structure, it would be more conclusive that the sharp countour would have dispersing throughout that ten years of observing.

At least if that "2nd law of thermodynamics" is still valid for our beloved Astrophysicists.

So we do see a complete different mechanism than we are told to to believe....
FS3

[FS3]

Ooops - they did it again! Based on questionable modells of How-Stuffed-Stars-work the ANL guys from Chicago fed their "Super-PC" with the usual "gigo" and got really nice pics out that every sci-fi author would be proud of...

Seeking efficiency, scientists run visualizations directly on supercomputers

ARGONNE, Ill. (July 30, 2009) – If you wanted to perform a single run of a current model of the explosion of a star on your home computer, it would take more than three years just to download the data. In order to do cutting-edge astrophysics research, scientists need a way to more quickly compile, execute and especially visualize these incredibly complex simulations...

So folks - to get it clear - if you ever want to perform some "cutting-edge astrophysics research" you simply can quit your useless efforts in the tracks as you won´t have that great PC-stuff in your garage that we do own!

Mine is bigger!

-And if you aren´t lucky to own some IBM Blue Gene/P supercomputer to model "the extreme physics" you´re hopelessly out.

Null!

Zilch!

Denanda!

- No chance to play "Astrofysicistors", anymore.

Me thinks this is only the usual "extreme mathematics" - and not "physics" at all - if I may raise my voice of scepticism.

But who am I to know...

FS3

[Anaconda]

Hi FS3:

I think you hit the jackpot

Increasingly, so-called "modern" astronomy relies on computer simulations (simulations are no better than the assumptions fed into the computer) and these simulations are a substitute for reality. That the computer simulations make more engaging images of the assumptions "modern" astronomy has incorporated into the physics of deep space structures and processes only goes to show that "modern" astronomy is more into self-justification than true exploration.

Why?

Because, increasingly, the actual observations & measurements and comparisons with known processes, support other rival analysis & interpretation, namely, Plasma Cosmology

[mharratsc]

As long as your 'discovery' is wildly conjectural and incorporates some new bizarre physics, or you have a computer simulation that graphically represents your current hallucination- you will get published.

If you try and understand some astronomical observation in a new way using old physics, yer a crackpot!

Mike H.