"Dusty Dead Star" or radiating dusty plasma phenomena ?

[MrAmsterdam]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitz ... 12982.html


A composite image from NASA's Chandra (blue) and Spitzer (green and red-yellow) space telescopes shows the dusty remains of a collapsed star, a supernova remnant called G54.1+0.3. The white source at the center is a dead star called a pulsar, generating a wind of high-energy particles seen by Chandra in blue. The wind expands into the surrounding environment. The infrared shell that surrounds the pulsar wind, seen in red, is made up of gas and dust that condensed out of debris from the supernova explosion. A nearby cluster of stars is being engulfed by the dust.

The nature and quantity of dust produced in supernova explosions is a long-standing mystery, and G54.1+0.3 supplies an important piece to the puzzle.

Image credit: NASA/CXC/JPL-Caltech/Harvard-Smithsonian CfA

Nah, that star ain't dead yet.

The nature and quantity of dust produced in supernova explosions is a long-standing mystery, and G54.1+0.3 supplies an important piece to the puzzle.

Long-standing mystery solved? The G54.1+0.3 star could be a dusty plasma vortex phenomena on a very large scale.

With no beginning and no end. At least, you don't have enough data to state beginnings and ends of these objects.

collapsed star? Isn't it outermotion? The star is radiating energy.

I bet that the "Dusty Dead Star" is a dusty cold plasma phenomena.

By the way, can anyone tell me how NASA's telescope group can come to the following conclusion?

the pulsar wind, seen in red, is made up of gas and dust

What method is being used here?

[jjohnson]

I keep telling you guys that NASA itself says that "in common with most scientists, plasmas are simply referred to as gas" - or "hot gas", or "winds", or "ionized gas", or... ...anything but plasma or, especially, electric currents. It's code; guys. No one in the big tent wants to get into trouble and Get Marginalized by saying any of the electric model's words. That's all. Except maybe pragmatic solar scientists and radio astronomers, who are pretty good at understanding Maxwell's Laws and circuit theory and the like (dynamos notwithstanding). The leap to cosmic conclusions is a difficult one to scale up, though, for theorists.

My favorite part was the lame hope that "G54 supplies an important piece to the puzzle". Only if you understand what you are seeing there. Gravity by itself simply does not - can not - do things like that.

Jim

[Jarvamundo]

Birkeland will never stop pinching em'

[MrAmsterdam]

Birkeland will never stop pinching em'

yeah, and according to Mr Johnson we are the codebreakers

[jjohnson]

By the way, Alex, in response to your question about the dust and 'gas' being "seen in red" - You know that astrophotography routinely takes portions of the spectrum which are invisible to the eye and assigns colors to those measurement channels so that we can perceive what is there, visually, even if it is not visible. The colors may mean something like, "this represents the presence of hydroxyl radicals at such and such a wavelength", or "the intensity of the color (or a set of colors spanning a range of wavelengths or temperatures) indicates how the radiation varies across the imaging area." They could have assigned a red color to velocity or temperature or wavelength - whatever it is that they are looking at that needs visual representation in our eyes' sensitivity range to be observed.

Another capability that this method permits is showing visible light - and the invisible light if desired - by gathering the few available photons through time exposure. We can't do that with our eyes. If the photon count in visible light is too low, we can't just stare and integrate them until we get a visible image. Either our optical neurons fire or they don't. The invention of film photography and controllable shutters, followed by film's successor, CCD imaging arrays, has allowed telescopes of many kinds, sensitive to selected EM wavelengths, to stare, sometimes for days, at the same patch of sky to gather enough photons to create a good image. Hubble's Deep Field imagery is one example of this process.

It's a very useful imaging technique (one of astronomy's greatest improvements in the last century was the expansion of the frequency range of what we can acquire, although the statements that many astronomers make regarding their conclusions from the observation sometimes do not accord well with what the Electric Model might choose to say about them.

I might point out that no matter how good or how technologically sophisticated, no matter what bandwidth is available or what mathematically innovative and robust imaging techniques are used, astronomers have failed completely, so far, to acquire any image that shows the presence of the dark matter or dark energy or a black hole to actually be where they say it must be. This parallels their efforts to create a working model of the fusion reaction purported to exist at the core of the Sun, and their efforts to detect gravity waves. They do not yet have the market cornered on reality, folks. - And they won't until they incorporate electrical dynamics into their model and dispense with the stuff which they don't need and cannot establish is there.