Gamma-ray burst could kill off ocean life
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jul 2010 19:45 On 7/25/10 6:03 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > On Jul 25, 2:22 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/25/10 3:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote: >> >>> On Jul 25, 6:05 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/24/10 11:04 PM, Brad Guth wrote: >> >>>>> How much gamma did we get from Sirius(B)? >> >>>> You do know that Sirius B is a white dwarf and not a black >>>> hole, Right? >> >>> It was nearby when its helium flashover took place. >> >>> Are you suggesting that a powerful nova is not gamma worthy? >> >>> ~ BG >> >> There is no evidence that Sirius B has ever gone Nova--For one thing >> Sirius A and B are too far apart. >> >> Background on Helium Flash for Brad >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_flash >> >> "Stars with greater than about 2.25 solar masses start to burn helium >> without their core becoming degenerate and so do not exhibit this type >> of helium flash". >> >> "The helium flash is NOT directly observable on the surface by >> electromagnetic radiation. The flash occurs in the core deep inside the >> star, and the net effect will be that all released energy is absorbed by >> the entire core leaving the degenerate state to become nondegenerate. >> Earlier computations indicated that a nondisruptive mass loss would be >> possible in some cases, but later star modeling taking neutrino energy >> loss in account indicates no such mass loss". > > Your purely subjective interpretation is noted. > > Sirius(B) started off as a 9 Ms. Go fish. Evidence suggests 5-7 Solar Masses. > > Sirius(B) may also have consumed Sirius(C). Go fish again. No Evidence of a Sirius C. > > You don't even know how close we were to those Sirius stars. No Evidence to suggest were were closer than today. > > ~ BG
From: palsing on 25 Jul 2010 23:04 On Jul 25, 4:03 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Your purely subjective interpretation is noted. Nothing subjective about Sam's interpretation, it is simple Astronomy 101 > Sirius(B) started off as a 9 Ms. Go fish. YOU go fish, there is no way Sirius B was ever that heavy...if it were, it would NOT be a white dwarf today. Again, astronomy 101... which you apparently either missed or slept through. > Sirius(B) may also have consumed Sirius(C). Go fish again. There is no evidence of a Sirius C... but even is there is/was... so what? Meaningless... > You don't even know how close we were to those Sirius stars. True enough, except that we know fer sure that the Sirius system was a lot farther away than it is now. You need to get over your obsession with the Sirius system, it is only remarkable at all because of its proximity to the solar system. Other than that, it is remarkably unremarkable, there are tens of thousands of other systems just like it. You like to reject facts as a matter of faith, having no real knowledge as to whether or not they are true. \Paul A
From: Brad Guth on 26 Jul 2010 20:22 On Jul 25, 8:04 pm, palsing <pnals...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 4:03 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Your purely subjective interpretation is noted. > > Nothing subjective about Sam's interpretation, it is simple Astronomy > 101 > > > Sirius(B) started off as a 9 Ms. Go fish. > > YOU go fish, there is no way Sirius B was ever that heavy...if it > were, it would NOT be a white dwarf today. Again, astronomy 101... > which you apparently either missed or slept through. > > > Sirius(B) may also have consumed Sirius(C). Go fish again. > > There is no evidence of a Sirius C... but even is there is/was... so > what? Meaningless... > > > You don't even know how close we were to those Sirius stars. > > True enough, except that we know fer sure that the Sirius system was a > lot farther away than it is now. > > You need to get over your obsession with the Sirius system, it is only > remarkable at all because of its proximity to the solar system. Other > than that, it is remarkably unremarkable, there are tens of thousands > of other systems just like it. > > You like to reject facts as a matter of faith, having no real > knowledge as to whether or not they are true. > > \Paul A Astrophysics in currently in the toilet. Far to much doesn't adds up and new stuff keeps getting more weird with nearly every discovery. The true history/evolution of Earth is still up for grabs. ~ BG
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 20:59 On 7/26/10 7:22 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > Astrophysics in currently in the toilet. Far to much doesn't adds up > and new stuff keeps getting more weird with nearly every discovery. Translation: Brad doesn't understand a bit of astrophysics, as is documented in his posting record.
From: Brad Guth on 26 Jul 2010 22:15
On Jul 26, 5:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/26/10 7:22 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > Astrophysics in currently in the toilet. Far to much doesn't adds up > > and new stuff keeps getting more weird with nearly every discovery. > > Translation: Brad doesn't understand a bit of astrophysics, as is > documented in his posting record. And your infomercial parroting means what exactly? Are you suggesting that a trained monkey couldn't do as well as yourself? ~ BG |