Scientists Get Clues on How Planets Form

AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/5/06 | Alicia Chang - ap

[NormsRevenge]

LOS ANGELES - Scientists think they have solved the mystery of how planets form around a star born in a violent supernova explosion, saying they have detected for the first time a swirling disk of debris from which planets can rise.

The discovery is surprising because the dusty disk orbiting the pulsar, or dead star, resembles the cloud of gas and dust from which Earth emerged. Scientists say the latest finding should shed light on how planetary systems form.

"It shows that planet formation is really ubiquitous in the universe. It's a very robust process and can happen in all sorts of unexpected environments," said lead researcher Deepto Chakrabarty, an astrophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Details appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Using NASA's infrared Spitzer Space Telescope, MIT scientists observed bright radiation released by a disk of rubble around a young pulsar 13,000 light years from Earth. The pulsar was once a giant star that collapsed in a supernova explosion about 100,000 years ago.

While researchers didn't directly see planets forming in the disk, they believe the building blocks are present.

In 1992, another team of scientists found planets circling a different pulsar, but they didn't observe a disk and couldn't tell how the planetary system formed.

Chakrabarty said the debris disk most likely formed from metal-rich material that failed to escape the supernova. The disk resembled that seen around sun-like stars, leading researchers to conclude it might spawn a new planetary system.

If planets did exist in the recently discovered debris disk, they wouldn't be habitable because of the violent process that gave rise to the disk, said astronomer Charles Beichman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.

"This is more Chernobyl than Malibu," said Beichman, who had no role in the research.

Scientists have long believed that planets like Earth were formed when dust surrounding a young star began to clump, smashing and fusing into one another.

___

On the Net:

Nature journal: http://www.nature.com

Spitzer telescope: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu

[Creationist]

Not being a Christian and being a scientist is nothing more than a misguided soul telling personal religious beliefs to lure those who believe in away from God.

This planetary article is nothing but speculation. The words in the first paragraph "think they have" are believed by many as though they did really happen, without any evidence or proof.

The words "resembles the cloud of gas and dust from which Earth emerged" are speculative, there is not one shred of evidence that this is the way anything is formed. In the 1000's of years man has looked to the sky no one has documented a new star forming only dying. And by the way where are those pic's of the cloud of gas which our solar system emerged. The words "most likely formed" are again believed by some as the gospel truth, as though that is the way it happened. The statement is speculative, take it to court and see if a judge will rule on your side with a statement like that. There is not any evidence in that statement only theory.

You believe in scientist that feed you assumptions and speculation as though it is true. Without evidence you stand firm to a belief that takes great leaps of faith to believe, it is a religious belief.

[Creationist]

Do you know how to use trig?

[RightWhale]

How are the Cepheid variables of historical interest?

[Creationist]

Famous Christian Scientists (From http://whychristianity.com) Michael Faraday (1791-1867) The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club, dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution. Kelvin (William Thompson) (1824-1907) Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered may areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities who recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating). Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against scepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!" Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Yea I see your point God did hinder there discoveries.

[Creationist]

The ones documented would have interest. But then as someone said about scientist over a hundred years ago would their instruments be as accurate as todays, or tomorrow's or next century.My point about measuring distance to a star that is many light years away is when you make the triangle (measure in June and December)the angle is only about 1 degree or if you were to draw it to scale it would look like a straight line.

Two straight lines of 100 light years long with a base of around 187 million miles.

That would be like two people standing at arms length looking at an object 10 miles away (this is an example not a scaled down proof), and triangulating the distance.

[RightWhale]

I can aim a rifle, iron sights, within one arc minute. With pistol it is about 3 arc minutes. Astronomers using iron sights can do as well on stars. With precision gears and some optical aid they can measure much finer. Still, 50 to 100 parsecs is considered adequately far for that technique with telescopic magnification, and one parsec, as for Alpha Cent, is iron sights accuracy. For greater distance they like to use absolute magnitude.

[VadeRetro]

Have you heard of Cepheid variables? The Hubble constant?

The question is not whether parallax works or has limitations, but whether you know anything about what has happened to extend the range of our knowledge. Your first post has been characterized as pure flapdoodle, Bravo Sierra, etc. It is so out of date as to be amusing in its militant Ludditism.

[blowfish]

It matches nicely with his ignorance of geology.

[muir_redwoods]

"Ah yes, Ye old...."more evidence for theories, grants and tenure" line. Translated to working puke speak...."We don't have a clue, but with more money, we might someday get one..."

Actually, astromomy is a very well developed science. One of the big advantages Astronomers have is they all get to work with the source material, everybody gets to look at the skies. Astronomers know a good deal about their science and it seems strange to me that you would impugn their knowledge with...Um, what are your qualifications again?

[NicknamedBob]

"Yea I see your point God did hinder there discoveries."

In truth, I fear you do not, for that was not my point.

[Creationist]

You can shoot pretty good as can I, but we are dealing in a couple of hundred yards. When you can hit a pop can at 25 miles with iron sites give me a jingle.

[RightWhale]

That's a pistol shot. Weak side from the hip.

[Creationist]

I said,

"... many scientist were Christians ..."

You said,

Being a Christian is not a barrier to being a Scientist, merely an impediment. From post number 24.

After my post with Christian scientist (# 44) I gave a sarcastic remark of how it must have hindered their discoveries based upon your remark.

You said,

In truth, I fear you do not, for that was not my point.

So it is difficult to understand your point as it sure reads that way

[Creationist]

You put your faith in men who every day change their minds on the meaning of or the discovery of or the translation of, yet they are never sure, always using words of speculation. Could have, might have, looks like, seems like. All this is written by men. Men with presuppositions of an old universe, yet the scientific evidence can be read as a young universe, shrinking sun, rings around Saturn still unstable after billions of years, no new stars popping up, the heat lose of Saturn and Jupiter are greater then their gain from the sun, which would not allow for billions of years.Yet none of you will put your faith in God and a book called the Holy Bible. Archeology in the Middle East always verifies the Bible never contradicts. Even if it were written by men on their own thoughts it would be pretty good for the prophecies have been and are coming true. I find that interesting that the prophecies manifest and yet people still believe that it is not literal.

[NicknamedBob]

Initially, my post was meant as humor, but there is a grain of truth to it as well.

Many alleged Christians disparage science, in the manner of your ridiculing the assertions of the article. You should be aware that the lesson, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." applies to Christians, as well as Pharisees.

Too many wilfully ignore clear evidence, prefering to assume the truth of ancient writings, over recent sightings.

They are not supposed to conflict. If you find the ways and rules of existence to be in conflict, it is because you are confused about one or the other.

Hence I had said "Big Bang" equals "Let there be Light." No conflict.

Your examination of the distances involved does not give appreciation for the lesson of the Cepheid variables. If you wish to overlay a religious view on scientific data, you must have a clear familiarity with both, or the attempt is a mockery.

Science advances by clear, repeatable, demonstrable analysis. Religious values transmogrify over time to whatever survives. There is often revolution, as well as revelation, in each.

[VadeRetro]

It's about following the evidence, not cranking out some tortured "interpretation" that leaves a Bronze Age religious text word-for-word "inerrant." If you're not letting things just be what they look like, you're not approaching science the right way.

[Creationist]

So is that how you look at Newtons work, Louis Pasteur, Washington Carver, Albert Einstein, Socrates,William Harvey, Jan B. van Helmont, Franscesco Redi, Marcello Malpighi, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Charles Darwin. They wrote their work long ago.

The problem is not letting thing be what they look like, because I am not saying these phenomena do not exist, I am saying that the evolutionist perspective always dictates the old universe scenario. When it is clear that the evidence can easily be and would be correctly interpreted as a young universe

[Creationist]

Thank you for your Kind advice.

If you think I am ignorant of these subjects you are mistaken. I may not know every aspect of the studies but I understand the workings of the subjects. I know all to well because I am a builder that know one is infallible, and that these studies are flawed through out. It is assumed that they work correctly because there is no real way to determine if they are wrong. The Cepheid variables do not give any more accuracy to the measurements. The only way to prove the distance is to get out your trusty Stanley 100 light year tape and measure the distance.

Clear evidence to cloudy eyes.

There is no conflict in the rules of existence God created us his rules apply to us all. Evolution could not create morals or else the animals would have a moral code yet they do not. Evolution did not bring us about there are too many variables that can not have happened by pure chance, breathing oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide, plants taking in carbon dioxide and expelling oxygen. Two separate organisms with need for each to survive.

[NicknamedBob]

"If you think I am ignorant of these subjects you are mistaken. I may not know every aspect of the studies but I understand the workings of the subjects."

I do not condemn for ignorance. That only means not knowing.

I am not comfortable with willful ignorance, the deliberate stopping of the ears and shutting of the eyes, and the incessant "I can't hear you! I'm not listening!" singsong.

Yet I believe in civil discourse. I will not challenge you, therefore to explain the Cepheids to me, but I will attempt to draw an analogy for you, so you will see why I am willing to trust the concept.

Imagine that you are standing at the rim of a large bowl-shaped valley, and that you can see houses on the other side, with white smoke rising from their chimneys.

You would conclude that if you actually walked over there, with your trusty Stanley tape of whatever length, that those houses would be a normal size, and not tiny little dollhouses.

Thus you can use what you see in a distant neighborhood as a measure of the scale of things in that neighborhood. That is the concept of the Cepheids: that they give us a way of reliably expanding our ability to measure things in a vast universe.

A universe so vast that light from distant suns takes billions of years to get to us. Regardless of the age of the Earth, the universe is more aged still. In fact, the stuff of which the Earth is made, all the metals and the oxygen and carbon, are leftover stuff from early massive stars that blew up, scattering material all over.

To me, this increase in scale does not diminish the awesome might and majesty of the Creator, it enhances it. The splendor of the night sky is a tapestry woven by a creative force of unimaginable magnitude, but my imagination gets a lot of stretching.

[VadeRetro]

So is that how you look at Newtons work, Louis Pasteur, Washington Carver, Albert Einstein, Socrates,William Harvey, Jan B. van Helmont, Franscesco Redi, Marcello Malpighi, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Charles Darwin. They wrote their work long ago.

This is just false. I have said nothing to lead you to believe I don't accept Newton's work, just for one. I can't imagine that Einstein for another would agree with much of anything you've ever said or thought about science. You no doubt agree with some fractured snippets quote-mined from his writings, but he would not agree with you on anything of substance. In particular, he did not use the word "God" in the way you probably assume, or hope that I will assume when you go get some quotes to wave around.

The problem is not letting thing be what they look like, because I am not saying these phenomena do not exist, I am saying that the evolutionist perspective always dictates the old universe scenario.

Precisely what I was talking about. Don't be so dense, OK? There's an Occam's Razor straightforward "just what it looks like" interpretation of the evidence and the pig-ignorant witch-doctor "This doesn't prove the great Oogety-Boogety didn't make it last Thursday" interpretation. You are relentlessly torturing your interpretation of any specific detail of the evidence. You make no effort to address all problems simultaneously with one consistent and plausible scenario. You don't give a rat's butt about science as a systematic investigation of nature. Your only concern is that it must not, must not, must not say things that upset the Great Oogety-Boogety.