Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Abramelin

Star's dust belt vanishes in 3 years

13 posts in this topic

Astronomers puzzled as star's dust belt vanishes

In just three years, the cloud of dust surrounding a young star has disappeared, indicating that there's something wrong with our current ideas of planet formation.

It may mean that planets can form much more quickly than previously thought or, alternatively, that stars harboring planets could be far more numerous

Read more >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would more likely believe that they misunderstood the evidence... A dust cloud large and thick enough to be detected from this far away would have to be many millions of miles thick (at least I think so)... and it would seem to take much more than 3 years to just travel to 'formation points' much less to solidify into a planet...

The first rule of making an astounding discovery... carefully re-examine your evidence....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first rule of making an astounding discovery... carefully re-examine your evidence....

No Taun, the first rule is to actually have evidence and not rely on guess work. Anything which includes sentences such as "at least I think so" should be disregarded immediately.

The thing about protoplanetary disks, such as the one discussed here, is that they are disk shaped. The thing about disks is that they have a tiny thickness compared to their diameter.

This disk is relatively small (space.com describes it as filling an inner solar system). The dust in a disk this small would orbit the star fairly rapidly, in our solar system Mercury orbits in just 88 days). I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "formation points" but your post seems to imply that these are static and that the dust particles some how have to reach them. This is not so. All the dust particles are orbiting at different speeds, depending on their distance from the star.

My final point is that you claim the experts have misunderstood the evidence whilst providing only guess work yourself. I'm more inclined to believe it is you that has missed the point. The entire point is that conventional models CAN'T explain the observations. You seem to want to disregard the observations because they don't fit the theory. That is exact the wrong way to do science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I DID NOT CLAIM THEY DID IN FACT MISUNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE!!!

I said That I would most likely believe that they did... Then I stated why I would believe that...

Of course I MUST be wrong... Scientists have never been wrong before...

("Formation points" - Gravitational 'center points' where planets/ planetoids form - if they coallesced into planets there had to be a central formation point...)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that last posting...

We are in the middle of a major family crisis right now involving a nephew who is missing under suspicious circumstances... and I had just finished speaking with his mother (my older sister -who always gets my 'dander up')...

No reason for me to snap out at you like that... I appologise...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

...

So Waspie This disk, is it theorized that it will form into several planetary objects or just one?

I assume that once one part of the disk gains a little more mass than the surrounding that more matter will be attracted there. Presumably this would make a tear, (guessing) and then another (heavy?) point would maybe be formed around on the other side of the star (or maybe really singularity at this point in time) and this pattern would repeat until you had several new planetoids?

Hopefully one day we will be able to send probes to record the details of an event like this. Wish I was born in a couple hundred years.

Edited by Karlis
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another theory, the dust has been harvested. Like how we are starting to get into harvesting asteroids, but on such a large scale that would require an massive industrial complex of drones to do it. Of course that is a wild speculation, but if it is true, it would be the first implication of intelligent life in the universe. Some species that are able to do this would be extremely powerful and would not require to have a planet to harvest materials. Matter of fact, they would more likely be able to just hang out our neighbor hood catching asteroids and harvesting them without interfering with us. I don't remember what kind of class of technology that would be, but it would be far more advance than we would be able to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tat forms fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason for me to snap out at you like that... I appologise...

No apology needed Taun, my post to you could have been more diplomatic. My best wishes to you and your family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The disc recently aligned itself "edge-on" with our line of sight from earth. It did not vanish, and reflects no radiation because the disc is thin and flat shaped, and fractal dust and gas. It was 1/3 as bright in 2009, and I predict that it will become visible again in a few years. Scientists cannot explain it, but my explanation is simple logic and fully predictable. The full explanation with photos (and far better story) is on my story at

http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2012/07/protoplanetary-dust-cloud-gradually.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my explanation is simple logic and fully predictable.

...and almost certainly wrong.

Firstly, the disk can not be infinitely thin, therefore, even though reduced, there would still be an infrared excess, the disk would still be visible.

Secondly, the disk would not suddenly turn edge on, it would be a gradual process, as with the rings of Saturn. The infrared excess would reduce gradually, not just disappear suddenly as seems to have happened here.

Thirdly, an edge on disk would have to occult the central star, leading to an apparent dimming of that star.

None of these things have been observed, hence your hypothesis does not fit the known facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The disc gradually became undetectable during a 2 year period measured. The sudden vanish disappearance interpretation of the disc is illogical. Dust blocks absorbs all visible and infrared emissions from the disc's aligned edge. Protoplanetary discs are not infinite as suggested, but are shaped aligned like Saturn's rings, being extremely thin seen edge-on, and not occulting starlight. Our's had extended out to about Neptune's orbit in our solar system. As a degreed scientist, I believe my theory to be true, and want NASA or some authority to research it.

Edited by GalaxyCell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows that planets are formed when the lowest choir of angels plays their kazoos--that's why Pluto was demoted to a planetessimal, he couldn't carry a tune. snark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.