Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Glimpse of baby planet shows what to expect when a star is expecting
Swirling, superheated hydrogen fueling the infant world’s growth
BY
CHRISTOPHER CROCKETT
1:36PM, NOVEMBER 18, 2015

please log in to view this image

SPACE LABOR Baby planets growing in the womb surrounding the young star LkCa 15 will eventually give rise to a young solar system, such as the one illustrated here.

JPL-CALTECH/NASA

• please log in to view this image
  EMail
• please log in to view this image
  Twitter
• please log in to view this image
  Facebook
• please log in to view this image
  Reddit
• please log in to view this image
  Google+

SPONSOR MESSAGE
Like a cosmic sonogram, new images showcasean infant world growing in the planetary wombthat encircles a young star. This is the first time researchers have observed a young planet actively feeding from the disk of gas in which it lives.

Light from hydrogen gas swirling around the planet gave the baby world away, researchers report November 18 in Nature. The glowing hydrogen is baked to about 10,000 degrees Celsius, nearly two times as hot as the surface of our sun. The only way to get the hydrogen that hot is if it is falling onto a fledgling planet no more than 10 times as massive as Jupiter, Stephanie Sallum, an astronomy graduate student at the University of Arizona in Tucson, and colleagues report.

Other researchers spied the young planet in 2009 and 2010 as a spot of infrared light orbiting the 2-million-year old star LkCa 15, which sits in the constellation Taurus. The infrared glow that they saw probably comes from warm dust encircling the new world.

Superheated hydrogen implies that the planet has not yet finished forming. Two other planets in the system show no signs of glowing hydrogen, which could mean they’ve finished forming, are not sucking down hydrogen as aggressively or are partially masked by intervening clouds of dust.



Feed me

please log in to view this image

STEPH SALLUM, DATA FROM ISELLA ET AL/ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL 2014


This composite image shows the feeding planet (blue, green and red blob) sitting within a clearing in the disk (gray) that surrounds the star (which is not visible). Another planet shows up in green. Hydrogen gas shows up in blue; red and green represent other infrared wavelengths.

 

So the first image is an impression then

The actual image doesn't look anything like what accretion should look like (Lets not forget it's entirely theoretical).
Accretion models cannot create big stars. They don't even work at all if Plasma is not used in them. Yet plasma is not considered a main factor in evolution of the wider universe, contradiction?

We also now have found from telescopes that stars form along strings of beads, again a fillament with stars is not something that makes sense in accretion theory.
Many of the stars form with 20% of the mass needed in accretion models. Even helium stars dont have the mass to remain a star with accretion theory.

"Baby planets" Almost insulting dumbing down of science, it hurts my brain

 

The neighbouring star is glaring at that image and saying "Those kids don't look like mine!".

 

Those are some ****-off huge planets in that first picture.
Either that or the sun is titchy.

 

Physicist explains why The hockeystick paper Michael (use the nature trick to hide the decline) Mann co wrote is not science. Seeing as I have no PhD n haven't been peer reviewed and published n'all

 

So it turns out the UK information commissioner actually said the Climate people at the CRU (where the met gets it's data) had committed a crime when they refused to turn over data relating to FOI requests.

That's after they "lost" thousands of emails and "lost" climate data

But the commissioner only received the actual details after the statute of limitations expired by 2009

Phil Jones and his fraud buddies are actually criminals who got off with a technicality.

And people call these shams the "experts"

 

.............

 

I actually watched that video months ago. So I fail to see how it contadicts anything I have posted on here? Maybe you can clarify how Chomsky's words disprove the data fraud posted by me?

 

@organic klopp

IPPC AR5 report "extremely likely humans are the cause of more than half the warming from 1951 to 2010

I totally agree

















NASA have nearly doubled the temerature rise with fraud, humans are indeed responsible

 

More evidence that these faux climate twats are actually working with the banks and oil companies.

"a major part of the Kerry-Lieberman bill was essentially written by BP."

Yep, BP the oil company wrote a major part of the US climate bill


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ell-says-kerry-lieberman-climate-bill-essent/


Also true, Al Gore worked on creating cap and trade with Enron and Goldman sachs in the 90s

Also, Obama was director of a charity (Joyce Foundation) that donated over 1.1m to launch a privately owned Chicago Climate Exchange.

His administration also privately and quietly bailed out a Chicago bank ShoreBank, who took wads of Obama cash and started throwing it all into green investment. This long before D'ohbama became a climate whore.

Add that to Pachauri just left head of the IPCC, same connection types, banks, oil and green renewables.

A scam that makes oil profits look like ****in pocket change

 

What gets lost on all this climatard hysteria is this a simple question given water is the only reason we are not an ice ball.

Can man control the sun evaporating water on the earth?
No?

End of story

 

I'm not making any accusations mate

What I will say is I have a deep and longstanding respect for Chomsky's opinions on a wide range of topics

 

Short story, poor characters, confusing plot

 

not the point, Chomsky just like liberal media have not scrutinised the IPCC or the scientists at all.

The IPCC work and honestly dissolve on contact with real science and scientists.

 

Tobes will just like now not discuss, because he keeps embarrassing himself on this thread.


Maybe you can explain how carbon taxes will control water evaporation?

Also, you pick that post out of a few cos you are a coward, who creates stats fictions for a living and somehow think you are smart like
Is that why you have a go at me for using charts, that I completely understand? because only you can be the chart guy?

Your muons and light clock show you know nothing about relativity too ******. Muons and lightclock Former nonsense the latter a theoretical proof not an experimental one You've only come back now after that beating weeks ago


Not as mart as you thnk you are astroclown

Your skill is creating false arguments

 

Haven't answered the question astrotard, how do you control water evaporation with carbon taxes?

Then tell me how this is not fraud, if you can understand it that is.

NASA 2012 Siberia Temperature record. 112 years

please log in to view this image

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=222254000003&dt=1&ds=1


NASA 2015 Siberia Temperature record. 115 years

please log in to view this image

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=222254000000&dt=1&ds=14

 

Why would we need to control evaporation?

How do 2 different images on the same website constitute a fraud?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34857404

#ouch

 

because they show two different sets of data that were created from the same source data, that are used to create UN policies.

That is how it is fraud. Now explain how changing data to fit political will is not fraud?

 

not really, if you believed all of these manufacturers were being honest then it shows how stupid you are

I said on this very thread last year that there is no way they know what China is really emitting.
What came out a month or two ago, China at least 16% underestimated emissions.

All of the stats are doctored you dope

Meanwhile they all ignore the very thing that actually does have an impact on warming, aviation traffic depleting Ozone, that is ignored yet it does far more to contribute to more energy from the sun than CO2, as Ozone blocks UV.

If I remember correctly you originally posted this in some CO2 rant but it turned out you are an ignorant libtard, well you think you are a libtard, you are just a small man with a massive ego