End of the road for the EU model?

[GaryN]

The Electric Sun is no more, and by implication, the EU. Princeton have used some incredibly powerful supercomputers, and the slickest of algorithms to show, in 3d even, how stars become supernovas and then neutron stars or black holes. I'm distraught. What am I going to do with my life now?

"I think this is a big jump in our understanding of how these things can explode," said Adam Burrows, a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton, who led the research. "In principle, if you could go inside the supernovae to their centers, this is what you might see."

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/arch ... /index.xml

Oh wait, he did say MIGHT there, didn't he?

[nick c]

GaryN,
Your sarcasm is greatly appreciated
from the article:

The new 3-D simulations are based on the idea that the collapsing star itself is not sphere-like, but distinctly asymmetrical and affected by a host of instabilities in the volatile mix surrounding its core.

Their simulations produce an asymmetrical explosion. Past supernova simulations produced a spherical explosion, which is not consistent with observation. While this new simulation avoids the symmetry of a spherical explosion, it produces another form which still does not conform to observation. Supernova remains are characterized, typically, as an hour glass form. Which as viewed from Earth can take a variety of shapes, depending upon our angle of view with respect to the supernova remnant.
I do not see this hour glass shape in their simulation.
See the tpod section on Novae/Supernovae:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Novae

Then, very visibly, there is a massive explosion, and the star's outer layers are ejected into space. This highly perceptible stage is what observers see as the supernova.

This is the only part of the entire process that can actually be observed- the star is throwing off material. All the rest, the implosion, the neutron star or black hole, etc. etc. is based on assumptions from the consensus theory.

To solve these complex equations and simulate what happens inside a dying star, the team used an advanced computer code called CASTRO that took into account factors that changed over time, including fluid density, temperature, pressure, gravitational acceleration and velocity.

We don't need no stinking electricity!

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

Tax dollars at work!

From the tpod, Kepler Supernova Remnant:

Instead of being the result of a mechanical explosion, the nebula is the result of a sudden increase in the current that powers the central star, a stellar electrical surge. The sheath (which surrounds every star and is normally invisible) has been pushed into the "glow" discharge state; the increased current is pulling matter from the star and from the surrounding space into the filaments that compose that current; and all of it is being heated electrically. Such a surge would have had a sudden onset and an exponential decline--just like a lightning bolt. The new star that 17th Century astronomers saw flaring up in their sky was a stellar thunderbolt. What we see is the declining aftermath.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... kepler.htm

Nick

[jjohnson]

Amen, Nick. Succinctly put. Simulation algorithms can be tweaked with selected parameters to show almost anything that the designers want, in living color to wow the audience.

Just because the Death Star in Star Wars looked a certain way on-screen as it was destroyed in fiery puffs of flames and smoke sure seems plausible to a typical audience. Space ships moving along in space sure have annoying, powerful sub-woofy engines audible all the time, too. However realistic to our senses, if it does not occur that way in reality, it remains nothing a clever, speculative simulation.

Ignoring careful consideration and inclusion of what happens to stellar matter at the high temperature of a star ignores its state - plasma - and the incredibly powerful electrodynamic forces that dominate the behavior of matter in that state. We never say to ignore gravity here — it's a force that has to be dealt with, too, in determining states and vector inputs, but plasma generally is able to ignore high gravity field potentials for one simple reason: it is not largely neutral, and its charged population "sees" much greater accelerations from the electric fields and magnetic fields within and around it than it sees from all the surrounding mass, nearby or distant

Solar physicists do not really think that the Sun's gravity is what causes those huge prominences that lift billions of tons of... plasma... off the surface and tens of thousands of km into space, nor do they claim that gravity is what bodily ejects a coronal mass out into space and beyond the orbits of the inner planets. They do speak and write in terms of currents and plasma and magnetic fields. They are still shy of writing about electric fields, and they have not looked too closely at Double Layers (one of the really crucial components in EU theory, IMHO), but those guys aren't observing off the back of a turnip truck. It's not their fault that the big, tax-payer funded labs on Earth are having a hard go of reproducing the hypothesized but unobservable "fusion reactor at the core of the Sun". Perhaps their lead theoreticians are way conservative, but the guys and gals in the astronomical trenches are anything but stupid, and know what gravity does and does not do on our star. It's a start. We need to learn to read through their code, such as hot gas, warm gas, stellar winds, magnetic fields, ripples, flux ropes, etc. and learn to equate them with our lingo. We need the translator apps active all the time in our tricorders!

Jim

[neilwilkes]

Good points all round - now if only they would stop spouting such nonsense like "Neutron Stars", which are a physical impossibility.

[JohnMT]

Hi all,

Same old stuff.

From http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac
Our Misunderstood Sun:

"Even good scientists do GIGO (garbage in – garbage out). Astrophysicists have a long history of plugging in the answer they want to see.”