cats eye

[orin stepanek]

To me; the inner parts of the nebula look like explosions. The outer concentric rings remind me of shock waves. much like the ripples when you drop a stone into water.
Orin

[BMAONE23]

The inner region reminded me of hot water in a clear glass container just before it starts to boil. Could it be boiling gas???

[davecorsby]

I have two questions about the cores of stars. The pressure at the center of massive stars must be colossal.
1. Are the cores of stars differentiated to support that pressure?
2. Does the pressure on the core increase over time?

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/ ... th_1c.html

If so, I would say the layers visible here record the ignition layers as hydrogen was crushed gravitationally into helium, and on through Period one elements.

As the center of the star collapsed into the Period two elements, the explosions became even more violent, ejecting much of the material above it.

Remember that argon has about the same radius as a hydrogen atom, but 40 times the mass. That is a LOT of collapse!

Even more violent explosions occurred as Period three elements were produced. Eventually the pressure could became so great that the core would be crushed into a rapidly spinning neutron star.

This type of implosion in larger stars could create a vacuum induced chaos conducive to producing black holes and supernovas.

I am intrigued by the spacing of the outer layers shown here. We should be able to measure the time required between layer collapse for various sized stars and get a better idea of what is happening to our own sun.

[Empeda]

It doesn't collapse through the elements like that...

Lithium is only created in trace amounts, Hydrogen fusion produces Helium, helium fusion produces mainly Carbon and Oxygen. A star the size of our sun would get no further than that. Our sun won't produce a neutron star - you need a massive star to do that - it would produce a white dwarf.

My guess would be the shells seen are the results of Helium flashes during the star's red giant phase.

[davecorsby]

So you believe that stars explode when they run out of fuel?

Yeah, we see cars doing that all the time!

Bernard E. J. Pagel's book "Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies" supports your point of view and undoubtedly has a lot of stuff right.

Our Medical Doctors have long believed that 1 + 1 = 21. They are now suspecting it is closer to 7.

Their clients have lost patience and are now searching for real answers to their problems.
Clients are forcing the medical profession to go back and reexamine the ten thousand years of accumulated knowledge they so arrogantly threw away a hundred years ago.
A prominent physician recently admitted that half of what we now know is wrong. The problem is that we don’t know which half it is.

I'm sure the same thing is going on in Astrophysics.

You yourself just admitted that the mass of the star determines the outcome. As for what is going on inside, we only have the occasional discharge to guess at.
What causes star quakes? Internal pressures have nothing to do with it?

What IS going on down there deep inside? Does it remain hydrogen until the bitter end?
NO! We know there are multiple shells in massive stars, all converting elements into increasingly heavier elements. Just how orderly or chaotic is that process? So many isotopes have such short life times it is hard to know. And, we have no understanding of the pressures involved.

Astrophysicists presently believe that if you know the mass of a star, that is all you need to know to determine how bright it will be, how long it will exist, and exactly where it is along the Hertzsprung-Russel Diagram,
... and that WE have 5 billion years before we need to worry about our sun going nova.

For me, that is a feel-good bedtime story to make them feel safe, just as they long believed that rocks do not fall from the sky.
The Religion of Uniformitarionism.

I believe the Oort Cloud is galactic instead of solar. Have you studied the massive production of Cometary Knots in nearby stars?

Another feel-good story: “Jupiter protects us by tossing comets out of our solar system.”
Hmmm. Doesn’t that suggest that other Jupiters are tossing them into ours?

Stage one stars formed from hydrogen shortly after a singularity stretched itself into time and space, (well, with small amounts of helium - by the way, What triggered the BB? Is it still happening to other singularities?) and would fit their model.

Stage two and three stars are different stories altogether!

Imagine a Sol sized star forming in a region flooded with iron molecules such that it first ignites with 50% iron at it’s core, lighter elements differentiated to a 20% hydrogen surface.

The same mass as a stage one star, but how could the life span be the same? What does that do to the H-R diagram?

How many heavy (I mean beyond heavy hydrogen and deuterium that Astrophysicists speak of) elements were drug into Sol when it formed? How far are we really along in the process?

We know our Sun is going through 22 year sunspot cycles that match the recent 22 year cyclone pattern. Is that related? What does that have to do with global warming? The answers are out there if we don't take too many analytical detours.

We need and deserve more than feel-good answers.

[greatergood]

This nebula is so incredibly both intricate and symetrical - even the wisps of matter at the edges of it share symetry.

What's more it look surprisingly like an implementation of the Julia set. Look here on the right:

vs the cat's eye nebula:


Mere coincidence? Or are we seeing a dying start causing shock waves governed by the recursive formula z_(n+1) = (z_n)^2 + c that defines the julia set?

If you want to play around some more with the Julia set, go here:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~oran/JuliaExplorer.html

[Black wHole]

What is a Julia set??? An anthromorphic name for fractels?? I think the pic on the right is too much like Cat's Eye for mere coincidence

[Black wHole]

here is a HEAPOW link to further this discussion...

HEAPOW: Sparkle in the Cat's Eye (2001 January 15)

[BMAONE23]

if you take the image into Photoshop and brighten the image (fill flash) the concentric rings of the catastrophe become apparent. If you invert the image colors, you can see them too.

[Empeda]

So you believe that stars explode when they run out of fuel?

No, only the one's that are massive enough, ie. about 8-10 solar masses.

I believe the Oort Cloud is galactic instead of solar. Have you studied the massive production of Cometary Knots in nearby stars?

Don't quite understand what you mean by that - do you mean that it formed from galactic formation rather than solar formation? It's a possibility for sure, by why would it be locked is the position around the sun where it is? A small disturbance could shatter it.

Another feel-good story: “Jupiter protects us by tossing comets out of our solar system.”
Hmmm. Doesn’t that suggest that other Jupiters are tossing them into ours?

Again possible, but the distances involved here are, well literally, astromical. If there is a jupiter around our nearest neighbour, the comet would have to be deflected EXACTLY in our direction - and even at the speed of light it would take four years to reach us. Since comets travel much much slower than this we're talking tens of thousands of years. Statistically, a probability tending to zero.

How many heavy (I mean beyond heavy hydrogen and deuterium that Astrophysicists speak of) elements were drug into Sol when it formed? How far are we really along in the process?

The sun is believed to be a second generation star. There appears to be trace levels of heavier elements. You would struggle to ignite a star the size of the sum if it has a 50% iron content at it's core, as this would impede fusion. You cannot fuse Iron.

Phew.....
Anyone else want to take over!

[orin stepanek]

I may be a little ignorant; but what is a second generation star?
Orin

[Empeda]

It's a star made up of the remnants of other stars if you like....

The first generation stars are thought to be "pure" hydrogen and helium - i.e. the first stars to form in the universe. Heavier elements are produced in stars (generally).

So a second generation is one that is made up of the remants of the first generation stars, so would contain a few heavier elements.

I don't think I've explained that very well but hopefully you get the idea

[orin stepanek]

Thank you! That is what I suspected; but I wasn't sure. You explained it well enough. In other words the gasses left over when other stars die can condense in new stars. If a star is pure; [first generation] wouldn't it tend to have a longer life span???
Orin

[Empeda]

For a simlar mass yes - but the earliest stars tended to be more massive - not sure of the theory why or behind that - so burnt out realtively quickly.

More density = higher mass stars? I'm guessing now...

[davecorsby]

Hi Orin,

You are right on!
First generation stars tend to begin at roughly the same size. Compacting hydrogen gas is a tedious business, and as soon as it reaches a certain minimal stellar mass it "ignites" at the surface of the core, and the emitted energy begins driving away incoming hydrogen, maintaining the small size.

We think many of the first stars ever formed still exist today, some 13 some odd billion years later.

Something to think about “Dead stars” can be incorporated into new stars!

Second generation stars begin with heavier elements (thought to be up to iron) and can become far more massive than the strictly hydrogen-helium predecessors before ignition. Also heavy asteroids and comets can be drawn in to the star, increasing mass even more.

Moderate stars have moderate life spans.

Really massive Third generation stars not only have greater surface area for reactions to take place, but reactions occur on many layers (Helium burning, Carbon, Oxygen, etc) at the same time ... like burning a candle at a billion ends at the same time.

We think some may only exist for a million years or even less.

The great thing about science is that all these ideas are out there for others to examine and tear apart or build on. The sad thing is that great thinkers have to die before others dare challenge their erroneous ideas.

How sure are we today about the basic assumptions made long ago?
1. There was only one “Big Bang.”
What if there are multiples? What does that do to our understanding of gravity and the Doppler effect?

2. All stars in a Globular Cluster were born at the same time and each contains exactly the same substances.
What do we really know about those “odd balls” involved with them?

3. The universe is expanding like dots on a balloon.
Then why are so many galaxies crashing into each other? Evidence is building that Galactic “arms” are actually captured galaxies.

Do we really even know what questions to ask?

[orin stepanek]

Hi Dave!
I'm more apt to believe in multiple bangs. I believe that the universe goes on forever. that There are parts that are so far out that we will never be able to perceive them. I believe that the universe is like a gigantic pin wheel like the atom the solar system the galaxies. Seems to run a pattern. I'm just an ole retiree looking in and learning. That is why I enjoy this quorum. I learn more every day. Thank you and all who share there ideas.
Orin

[Empeda]

Hey Dave!

Second generation stars begin with heavier elements (thought to be up to iron) and can become far more massive than the strictly hydrogen-helium predecessors before ignition.

I don't quite understand why second generation would become more massive, especially when current theories suggest that the first stars were supermassive - I can see that you would need more mass to generate burning, but would this in itself result in greater mass stars?

Fasinating ideas mind, I like the way you think.... 8)

[S. Bilderback]

Higher mass density, yes. More mass, no. There is an upper pressure/density limit a star can reach before fission starts. Any matter not under the pressure threshold will be blown out as solar wind. There are numerous factors to determine the final size of a star; rate of compression, gas temperatures and types. Slower forming systems are more likely to form binary system.

[orin stepanek]

Why would slower forming systems form binary systems???
Orin

[Empeda]

Not 100% sure - but I think it so there's time for multiple protostars to form - was a star ignites and it's "solar" wind gets going it'l blow out all the surrounding gas - so if an protostar has not formed it never will??

[davecorsby]

Second and third generation stars form in the “dust lanes” of galaxies - remnants of previous stars. Take a look at:

Eta Carinae - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041128.html

NGC 3603 - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990604.html
“NGC 3603: From Beginning To End
Credit: Wolfgang Brandner (JPL/IPAC), Eva K. Grebel (U. Wash.), You-Hua Chu (UIUC), NASA
Explanation: From beginning to end, different stages of a star's life appear in this exciting Hubble Space Telescope picture of the environs of galactic emission nebula NGC 3603. For the beginning, eye-catching "pillars" of glowing hydrogen at the right signal newborn stars emerging from their dense, gaseous, nurseries. Less noticeable, dark clouds or "Bok globules" at the top right corner are likely part of a still earlier stage, prior to their collapse to form stars. At picture center lies a cluster of bright hot blue stars whose strong winds and ultraviolet radiation have cleared away nearby material. Massive and young, they will soon exhaust their nuclear fuel. Nearing the end of its life, the bright supergiant star Sher 25 is seen above and left of the cluster, surrounded by a glowing ring and flanked by ejected blobs of gas. The ring structure is reminiscent of Supernova 1987a and Sher 25 itself may be only a few thousand years from its own devastating finale. But what about planets? Check out the two teardrop-shaped objects below the cluster toward the bottom of the picture. Although larger, these emission nebulae are similar to suspected proto-planetary disks (proplyds) encompassing stars in the Orion Nebula.”

Check out “Bok Globules” http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030127.html

Even more to the point is: The Helix Nebula: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960416.html

“Cometary Knots in the Helix Nebula
Credit: R. O'Dell and K. Handron (Rice University), NASA

Explanation: Four hundred fifty light-years from Earth, the wind from a dying, sun-like star produced a planetary nebula popularly known as the Helix. While exploring the Helix's gaseous envelope with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), astronomers discovered indications of 1,000s of striking "cometary knots" like those shown above. So called because of their resemblance to comets, they are actually much larger - their heads are several billion miles across (roughly twice the size of the our solar system itself) while their tails, pointing radially away from the central star, stretch over 100 billion miles. Previously known from ground based observations, the sheer number of cometary knots found in this single nebula is astonishing. What caused them to form? Hot, fast moving shells of nebular gas overrunning cooler, denser, slower shells ejected by the star during an earlier expansion may produce these droplet-like condensations as the two shells intermix and fragment. An intriguing possibility is that instead of dissipating over time, these objects, could collapse and form pluto-like bodies. If so, these icy worlds created near the end of a star's life, would be numerous in our galaxy.”

The Ring Nebula,The Eskimo Nebula, The Little Ghost Nebula, The Cocoon Nebula, ALL bear witness that the “dust” our sun formed in contained billions of condensed cometary knots the size and mass of Pluto up to failed stars the size of Jupiter.

What is the probability of none of these objects ending up in newly formed stars?

[playboy]

I would say the layers record the ignition layers as hydrogen was crushed gravitationally into helium, helium into lithium, and on through Period one elements.

As the center of the star collapsed into the Period two elements, the explosions became even more violent, ejecting much of the material above it.

Remember that argon has about the same radius as a hydrogen atom, but 40 times the mass. That is a LOT of collapse!

Even more violent explosions occurred as Period three elements were produced. Eventually the pressure became so great that the core was crushed into a neutron star.

This type of implosion in larger stars could create a vacuum induced chaos conducive to producing black holes and supernovas.

We should be able to measure the time required between layer collapse for various sized stars and get a better idea of what is happening to our own sun.

Who could argue with that!

[Empeda]

I could cos it's not right....

[davecorsby]

S. Bilderback wrote:

Higher mass density, yes. More mass, no. There is an upper pressure/density limit a star can reach before fission starts. Any matter not under the pressure threshold will be blown out as solar wind.

That is correct for stars forming in primal hydrogen clouds - to a point.

Watch our clouds as they enter cold air. The steam molecules contract and pull the cloud apart into evenly sized puff balls.
Something like that must have happened as the first stars were formed. It is thought that Hydrogen condensed into spherical clouds which condensed into the first globular clusters, which condensed into smaller puff balls.
At some mass, each puff ball condensed to the point of ignition and became a separate star.
Some surmise early high cosmic temperatures required large puff balls and massive first stars. This is suggested by distant objects surrounded by massive clouds of iron dust.

The present microwave background is somewhere around 3 degrees K. At that temperature, hydrogen is a metallic solid.

One Stellar mass should be defined as the minimum mass required for hydrogen to be compressed into helium and ignite to become a star.
How many stellar masses = one Solar Mass?

Small stars only convert hydrogen into helium. Some say they can only produce 10-15% helium before shutting down and going quietly into that good night. But this takes longer than the universe has existed.

Medium mass stars present a confusing picture because of the relative instability of various element structures. The material ejected tends to be surface material mixed with dredged up material, but there is a correlation to the periodic table (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen) with increasing star mass up through about 8 solar masses showing at least three dredge up episodes as they move off the main line sequence into the red giant branch. If heavier elements are formed, they are trapped in the collapsing core.
Companion stars add to the confusion and opinions.

Higher mass stars dredge up ever heavier elements, and the core spins faster and faster as it collapses into ever denser elements. Depending on the initial mass, the core finally compressed into a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole, and the material above the core is blasted out into space. This is the birthplace of our copper, silver and gold.

The literature (Bernard E. J. Pagel - Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution of Galaxies Page 201) speaks of stars of up to 120 Solar Masses, and speculate that at some upper value, they may collapse directly into black holes without ever emitting any light or material at all.

Small mass = long life. Medium mass = medium life. Maximum mass = no life at all.

Perhaps short lives explains why the outer edges of galaxies spin faster than expected.

[Recycled Electrons]

I could cos it's not right....

Empeda, dear, I wouldn't keep trying if I were you. What little of what davecorsby says that is at all intelligible is also wildly incorrect.

davecorsby, your inquisitive nature is refreshing, but you might really want to check some of your facts before listing them in a public forum as facts.

The evolution of stars is rather well understood. Any basic astronomy text can outline it for you.