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 2
Weitter Duckss

Supernovae are not our creators

113 posts in this topic

We have been listening for too long that supernovae (or just, novae) are responsible for our existence. They brought heavy, essential elements to our planet. Iron, uranium and other complex elements are said to have come from the universe to form our Earth.

To make the absurdity even bigger, there are not so many (only a few dozen) remains, made by the star explosions. According to Wikipedia, the amount of these supernova remains inside our galaxy ranges from 25 (or 40, if planetary nebulae are included) to 100, if all other nebulae and particle clouds are included (a molecular cloud, Bok globules, interstellar cloud, etc.). For the sake of the example: if we identify every nebula or cloud to be an exploded star – which is highly incorrect – and compare them to the total quantity of stars in the galaxy (100 – 400 billion of stars), it can be concluded that it is a completely neglectable quantity, in terms of the observations of the processes inside the galaxy and beyond.

How is it possible to draw the conclusion that a phenomenon of a neglectable significance is able to deliver complex elements to a few hundred billion of stellar systems and also create a vast number of new stars, just as the hypothetical black holes and neutron stars?

That disbalance, although catches the eye terribly, keeps getting away with it and becomes a fundamental science and a constant source of creating the unlimited number of continuous fabrications (which could by no means be identified with science or even science fiction).

“The Sun is composed primarily of the chemical elements hydrogen and helium; they account for 74.9% and 23.8% of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere, respectively. All heavier elements, called metals in astronomy, account for less than 2% of the mass, with oxygen (roughly 1% of the Sun's mass), carbon (0.3%), neon (0.2%), and iron (0.2%) being the most abundant.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Composition

The density of a star is very low, less than 1,5 g/cm3 (Sun: 1,408), which clearly indicates the complete absence of complex elements. A bit higher density of gases that create a star appears due to the forces of pressure, which make the gases more compact inside that space or a star.

Where does it even come from, the claim that the explosion of an object, composed of hydrogen and helium, delivers its non-existing complex elements? If the stars before the explosion were composed only of the complex elements, then again, their small quantity presents only a neglectable significance, which can not be related to the complex particles of 100 – 400 billion of stellar systems. Besides, there is the disintegration of particles at work, due to the enormous explosion (the estimates are that only a small part of the stellar matter remains as a nebula).

The nebulae are generally composed of hydrogen and some helium, and other elements existing in insignificant quantities. It has never been discovered that there are silver, gold, uranium or generally any other complex element present on the stars or nebulae (at least, not in the quantities that are needed to establish such a hypothesis).

It also needs to be pointed out that the general information on Wikipedia also distinguish nebulae and clouds from the stellar explosions: there are 25 examples mentioned under the section of supernovae remains and 40 examples under the section of planetary nebulae (which also include the remains of supernovae).

The explosion of the star that later became known as the Crab Nebula, had taken place in 1054. and during this period of 1000 years it has moved less than 6 light-years away from the center (its diameter is some 11 light-years). The intensity of radiation and waves decreases with the square distance; matter spreads out much slower, therefore, there are no nebulae with the diameter longer than 200-600 light-years (a molecular cloud, which was not created by the stellar explosion and it does not represent the remains of a supernova).

There are no valid evidence to scientifically accept the idea that supernovae are the cause of all our ignorance, i.e., that they are responsible for the appearance of the complex elements on our planet – they are absolutely innocent.

W.Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The heavier elements are caused by fusion of lighter elements. A supernova has unimaginable energies and pressures making fusion of larger and larger molecules happen.

Some stars form long after the first stars and gather some material blasted away by earlier supernovas. They can have quite a bit of heavier material in them as well as mostly hydrogen and helium. They fuse only hydrogen for most of their lives but as the hydrogen is consumed, the outward pressure drops and a very massive star (much, much larger than our sun) compresses until it reaches a threshold where heavier elements start to fuse. That can last a very short time before much of the star is blasted away and the heavy-element fusion stops.

Another kind of supernova happens when a small, very dense star is closely orbited by a much less dense star and material from the less dense star is pulled onto the denser one. Eventually, enough of that material is ultra-compressed and heavier-element fusion happens. The energies released blast much of the material off of the denser star, which calms down until it pulls enough material from the less dense star to go through the heavy-element fusion again.

The swirling blobs of interstellar medium that coalesced into the sun and planets were mostly hydrogen and helium with a little bit of heavier material. When the proto-sun grew large enough that hydrogen fusion began, the solar wind blew away most of the hydrogen and helium in the rest of the solar system, leaving metals, rock, water ice, etc. The gas giants had strong enough gravity to keep much of their hydrogen and helium but the smaller planets lost most of their lighter elements due to the solar wind.

Almost all if not all of the elements heavier than helium were created inside massive stars and blasted out into the universe.

Edited by Blizno
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct from the perspective of the official science.

Explosion = colliding particles. Colliding particles in accelerators = disintegration of particles, not the formation of complex particles.

The density of stars and galaxies center is independent of the mass and the size about 1.5 g / cm ^ 2

Complex elements are linked mainly to small bodies (asteroids, comets, not gaseous planets and stars in the making (brown dwarfs).

Do not explode the star of the same mass, contrary explode stars very different size and always are white and blue stars ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some say there hasn't been enough time to create so much heavy elements across the universe, but from what I've read, there were a lot more supernovae capable stars, and supernovae occurred at a lot quicker rate (Due to size of stars involved), in the early universe. So using current rates of supernova occurrences will yield a much smaller number of total mass of heavy elements in the universe. At least that is what I've heard/read.

Explosion = colliding particles. Colliding particles in accelerators = disintegration of particles, not the formation of complex particles.

Uhhh... No. Heavier elements when put into a accelerator, if they move at all, do not disintegrate. That would cause a lot of energy to be released, which probably would mean the end of said accelerator. (It would be equal to a matter/anti-matter explosion) Instead most of the time (When the particles do collide) the particles collide and stick together, or fragment into smaller particles/elements. This is how the various man made super heavy elements have been studied, because they don't exist in nature. Many of them have a half life measured in nano, or pico seconds.

Here is a primer off of Wikipedia on nucleosynthesis. Please read up on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia...Nucleosynthesis

https://str.llnl.gov...dfs/07_07.4.pdf

Edited by DieChecker
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to not get into hypotheses from the link.

Heavier elements are not in the stars (about 1%), already on, not gaseous bodies that orbit the a star or are independent (brown dwarfs ..).

Hypothetically, heavier elements from supernovae they should be equally distributed on all bodies, what is not the case in our system.

Other chemical composition remains supernovae have the same or similar composition as the star and does not indicate the existence of a (significant quantities) the heavier elements, but rather the opposite.

There is a huge difference between the colliding particles in the laboratory and in natural conditions (the first without special conditions do not give any results, these conditions we have in the universe).

An accelerator are proven to particles disintegrate (using the great powers) and inside the nebula missing most of the matterwhich is filled hypothetical: black holes, neutron stars and dwarfs (dwarfs today are mostly small stars without super powers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Weiter, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Heavier elements aren't created when a supernova explodes, it's when it collapses inwards before it then explodes outwards that causes nucleosynthesis. It happens when the atoms are crushed together under enormous pressure and they fuse to create heavier elements. The subsequent explosions is what spreads them out into space.

You really shouldn't be criticising science you clearly don't understand the basics.

You also stated that the density of the sun, 1.5gm/cm3 proves that there isn't any heavy elements in it. That actually makes no sense.

First of all, that's just the average density. The actual density ranges from 150g/cm3 at the core to a fraction of a gram per cubic centimeter in the photosphere.

Secondly, and more importantly, it makes no sense at all to say that because something has an average density of 1.5gm/cm3 that therefore it can't have heavier elements in it. That's like saying that because the average density of the Earth is 5.5gm/cm3 there can be no iron in the earth because iron has a density of 7.9g/cm3. In fact we mine millions of tonnes of the stuff out of the earth's crust every year.

You may as well conclude that the published wages of top athletes are clearly lies because how can anyone earn millions in the USA when average salaries are merely tens of thousands of dollars?

Edited by JesseCuster
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hypothetically, heavier elements from supernovae they should be equally distributed on all bodies, what is not the case in our system.

Actually I don't believe we've examined the crust of even Mars, or Venus, to know if there are heavy metals present. And, I'd argue that gravity, centered on the Sun, would have drawn the heavier elements of a pre-solar system gas cloud toward the center, and thus ending up on the inner most worlds.

An accelerator are proven to particles disintegrate

Maybe you don't know the definition of "disintegrate"? If you mean that the particles are turned into energy, then you are wrong. If you mean the atomic nuclei get blown apart, then sometimes that does happen. But also an accelerator can be used to stick particles together by slamming them together at a high energy state.

black holes, neutron stars and dwarfs (dwarfs today are mostly small stars without super powers).

Super powers?

Neutron stars are stars that have collapsed, to the point it is all one nuclei. All the protons and neutrons are crammed together. At least sort of, as a very simple description.

Some dwarf stars just never got very much matter and so are dim and relatively cold, and some are remnants of novae or supernovae.

I'm sure Waspie will correct anything that I'm wrong about.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JesseCuster

"You really should not be criticizing science you clearly do not understand the basics."

The word science replace with the hypothesis.

I just observe the available evidence and looking for a proper schedule.

I pointed out the relation: the composition of the stars / composition of the rest of supernovae. The composition is identical or similar.

This very clearly shows that various hypotheses to create heavier elements are inaccurate.

On the composition of the Earth and iron we discuss in: Why iron did not sink when Earth was hot? http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#iron

DieChecker

About dwarfs and stars we were in: The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#The-causal

The evidence does not confirm the hypothesis of the "special powers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DieChecker

About dwarfs and stars we were in: The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color

http://www.svemir-ip...html#The-causal

The evidence does not confirm the hypothesis of the "special powers".

I notice that your linked "evidence" is a article written by yourself. Thanks for the article anyway.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that you know alternative way of producing heavy elements :) Something like homemade high pressure and temperature chamber? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The atoms - what are they?. ... http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#8b

And atoms were part of the discussion here.

The complex atoms are formed as part of a circular upward process of matter.

"Inside this process there is a process of growth and disintegration of elements, which is related to temperature and rotation. The atoms of the lower order are generally present on smaller objects: asteroids, comets and the majority of satellites and smaller planets. When an object’s mass is sufficiently increased, given other forces, too, it becomes geologically active. Its temperature grows inside and outside its crust, due to the formation of heated core. The atoms of the higher order are created under these conditions. The more active and warm a planet is, the higher is the presence of the higher order elements. However, at certain point temperature begins to destroy (disintegrate) higher elements.

As temperature gets higher, a variety of elements gets poorer; the heated stars generally consist only of hydrogen and helium, with other elements below 1%. Both of these processes can be traced on Earth; the other one is visible through the composition of magma. Magma consists of the lower order atoms, which is confirmed by its cooled rocks. Neither gold nor silver or any other higher order element, exist in magma; for them to be created, more conditions need to be met.

The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. Those with slower rotation are red, while with the increase of the rotation speed, also increases the glow and temperature of a star. ..." From "Processes in universe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. Those with slower rotation are red, while with the increase of the rotation speed, also increases the glow and temperature of a star. ..." From "Processes in universe".

I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard that the rotation speed of a star affects the color. I've always read that it was the solar mass and elemental composition of the star that is the main component of a star's surface temperature and the color.

http://www.astro-int...emperature.html

Is "Processes in the Universe" a book, or maybe a website??

What you are writing (About the formation of heavier elements) seems almost Alchemical to me.

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The color of a star is basically decided by the surface temperature of the star." from you link.

Link also connects temperature and color.

The link color and rotation I gave in the article: "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color" http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#The-causal

Later an article was published which connects color and rotation (large sample):

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-blue-stars-unusually-hot.html

"The international team found the so-called blue hook stars throw off their outer layers cool late in life because they are rotating as rapidly, making them more luminous than usual."

The article can be considered as confirmation of my article (it was a few months later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you are joking

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love jokes, but this one I missed.On what do you target?

Blue rapid rotation (so and they say) red are slow rotation, it evidence they say (you select the red star from the database and check).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The atoms - what are they?. ... http://www.svemir-ip...otating.html#8b

Why are you using your own ramblings as a source of credibility?

Even your explanation of orbiting bodies is utter crap, you claim some EM repulsive force is keeping planets in orbit. Doesn't velocity factor in your poor understanding of physics?

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#5b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you using your own ramblings as a source of credibility?

Even your explanation of orbiting bodies is utter crap, you claim some EM repulsive force is keeping planets in orbit. Doesn't velocity factor in your poor understanding of physics?

http://www.svemir-ip...otating.html#5b

I need your advice. How a completely new matter explain older links?

You need to know that just one small part of the material (~ 0.15% of the total mass of the system, star) orbiting a star. To Earth daily arrives to 140 tons of material and does not end in orbit around the Earth.

When the rotating body (star or other body) rotates, and its attractive and magnetic power (have not been frozen) as well as the attractive force of the magnet when rotating.

It is obvious and that the link to add to this?

I use only the evidence from the database that are available to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously telling me you don't know what velocity is? That is why you've invented some magical repulsive force? You use your own asinine statements as "evidence".

But then this is from the same genius who thinks they can take a balloon up to the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that, kids, is why you really, really should listen when you are at school.. When you get older, it is quite easy to also look up the 'mainstream view' on these sort of topics.. DO try to follow the logic and understand *why* the mainstream view is held, before you come up with an ignorant, ill-informed and demonstrably wrong view..

Almost 99.99% of the time you will see that the mainstream scientific view is held because it fits the observations, is logically sound, and all the math 'works'. In other words it is exactly the opposite of the trash posted by Weitter.

Without that basic knowledge of the mainstream view, it is best to not just make stuff up and demonstrate how little you know. For further examples of what not to do, just check Weitter's other postings...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously telling me you don't know what velocity is? That is why you've invented some magical repulsive force? You use your own asinine statements as "evidence".

But then this is from the same genius who thinks they can take a balloon up to the moon.

Speed + gravity = straight line.

How, by using these factors explain the circular and elliptical orbits or generally orbit?

At some point the body, he changed his mind and for unknown reasons and unknown forces rolled up the steering wheel and make a circle?

If this is enough for you, to me, is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed + gravity = straight line.

So projectiles travel in straight lines unaffected by gravity?
How, by using these factors explain the circular and elliptical orbits or generally orbit?

At some point the body, he changed his mind and for unknown reasons and unknown forces rolled up the steering wheel and make a circle?

If this is enough for you, to me, is not.

Newton's cannonball is an easy explanation of velocity and gravity affecting the trajectory of a projectile.

newton-cannon-orbital-types-Seeds-smex.jpg

From http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/rwoclass/astr1210/guide08.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thank also my page http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/

Maybe you could put a link on your page to the Flat Earth Society, they don't understand simple physics either.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So projectiles travel in straight lines unaffected by gravity?

Newton's cannonball is an easy explanation of velocity and gravity affecting the trajectory of a projectile.

newton-cannon-orbital-types-Seeds-smex.jpg

From http://www.faculty.v...10/guide08.html

If I understood: on the sun exists gun that shoots planets!

Please that this you patented.

The rotation of the body = force that bends right line in ellipse, and with the help the central body through the long period in a approximate circle.

Skilled player snooker rotating ball thrives on the table to make a closed ellipse (a boomerang works similarly).

When exists rotation of the gun is unnecessary..

Edited by Weitter Duckss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you could put a link on your page to the Flat Earth Society, they don't understand simple physics either.

I do not know for reasons for their "knowledge," but in general they are not alone, in most are.

Today we believe that the universe is flat or slightly curved, believe in the big bang, black holes, horrible dwarfs, water in liquid form at -180 ° C, etc. the list is very long.

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.