Right Handed Spiral Galaxies are Preferred

WD disintegration by accretion of companion star is not implosion, thats very clear, but is it explosion? The WDs are mainly with carbon and oxygen in the core, so infalling material of companion star ignites the carbon, that starts the burning of the carbon, the current understanding is that even though huge amount of energy (in excess of 10^30 ergs) is released in this process, but it is not explosion. In popular terms it can be considered as explosion.

Type II (not 11) S/N process is far more difficult to understand and models are original star mass dependent. A star of original mass of around 5 - 25 solar mass will be just short of collapsing to form a BH, so we should get S/N type event for upto a star mass of 25 solar mass. In the lower range at the end of exothermic fusion process (till Fe56), the gravitational collapse starts, this is implosion (outer pressure is more than inward), this is a very dynamic process, very very transient and produces Neutrons in the innermost core by electron capture process and the inner cores even traps Neutrinos (massive energy), the neutrons by nature are very less compressible and hence when outer collapses on to the inner hard surface of neutrons/nuclear matter, it bounces back, this creates the shockwave in outward direction, and if this shockwave is strong enough to destroy the secondary Fe layer, then tremendous amount of energy gets released and the star is completely destroyed sans the inner neutron star core, this is explosion, massive explosion. So it can be safely said that type II S/N is a process which starts with implosion and ends with explosion.

So I would say Type I is certainly not implosion, it is explsoion in popular sense but it can be termed as burning which is just short of explosion. Type II is started with implosion (inward collapse) and then massive explosion due to shock wave.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pl give a single proper link which will tell that a constant force (F = ??) is operating on something of the spacetime to cause the accelerated expansion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice rundowns except of course for your conclusions. You are probably being swayed by the BB not being an explosion in the traditional sense...that is correct, since all it was, was an evolution of space and time [spacetime]
TYPE 11 and type 1a S/N explosions are though quite analogious to normal explosions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please give a single reputable link that invalidates what I said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Worth noting though that stars similar to our Sun, will not undergo what would be considered an explosive event....more a relatively gentle blow off of the outer layers of the red giant phase, leaving a friendly White Dwarf.

 

Let's look at the following in more detail.....

The type 1a is a huge release of energy and is 100% an explosion as any normal person would recognise.

No, as I explained to Schmelzer:
The "implosion" is simply gravitational collapse to a dense core [Iron/Nickel]
This initiates a rebound of the outer layers, and subsequently the S/N of which we speak. To say the 'implosion/gravitational collapse" is a S/N is not understanding what happens.

Yes, you have said many things with grandeur extended explanations and figures galore, but as yet you are unable to invalidate anything I have said with any reputable link/reference.
Which makes your grandeur extended explanations with figures not really worth that much.
A S/N explosion is exactly what the word infers, [it involves matter] unlike the BB "explosion" which afterall was a term coined by Freddy Hoyle as a derisive comment.


PS: Of course it would be interesting to see if any "arXiv" scientific papers refer to a S/N explosion as an implosion.

 

Take an air filled balloon, start pressing it inward till it burst...Now you can find out what is implosion and what is explosion.

As i said in popular terms both type I/II can be described as explosion, so whatever you have stated on this is fine, but if you are trying to impress upon that you have taught or corrected Schemelzer on this terminology, then everyone knows better...

I suggest you read the paper by Bethe "How Supernova explodes", this is a text paper and will give you more than popular perception about this explosion / implosion.

By the way, how did you know that collapse rebounds from Fe/Ni core, after reading this paper you will correct it a bit too...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We are talking about hot balls of plasma called stars, not water filled balloons.

They are described as explosions because that's what they are....explosions, certainly not implosions.
Schmelzer was wrong and origin was correct. Sometimes people trying to be unnecessarily pedant, fall into the poo. Schmelzer is also a independent physicist who has a problem with other mainstream issues as well........Everyone certainly knows that.
Gravitational collapse and the Implosion, initiate the S/N.

Why not link to it? I'm sure it will agree to what I have said, despite your usual tiresome pop science cop out description.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No I don't believe I will. I'm confident in what I have said, but again, please link to his paper and I'll give it my best shot. In the meantime, please show me any scientific paper where a S/N explosion is referred to as an implosion.
It is as I have described.

In the meantime......
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-a-supernova.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/snovcn.html

 

No inward pressure is more than outward pressure, or in more scientifically correct terms, radiative pressure is overcome by gravity pressure.
When the rebound happens, we have the S/N explosion.

 

the gravitational collapse starts, this is implosion (outer pressure is more than inward)..

Pl read outward pressure as Pressure from Outside and Inward pressure as pressure from inside...some loose wordings here from my side.

 

But first you have to substantiate your claim that accelerated expansion is due to some kind of constant force.

Simply answer how and where [F = mass * acceleration] is operative, if thats what you are suggesting.

 

The generation of shock wave and subsequent rebound is from the inner most Nuclear Degenerate Matter, not from the Fe/Ni layer as you are insisting.

In fact for larger star mass the outer layers (beyond nuclear core) may trap the shock wave without really causing the explosion, this is a possibility and hence the things are pretty muddled up there.

You need to understand this process in depth....this gives away.

PS: This is not my theory, this is also not pop science which I hate and you are the king of that, this is mainstream...your worshipped mainstream.

 

...from #107 :"Take an air filled balloon, start pressing it inward till it burst...Now you can find out what is implosion and what is explosion." - The God

...from #108 : " {roll eyes} We are talking about hot balls of plasma called stars, not water filled balloons." - paddoboy

...so, a Thread about non-existent 'Right Handed Spiral Galaxies' has turned into another Pop Science/Mainstream Argument...about S/N explosions...

 

If you were not so burdened down with your own delusions of grandeur, and occasionally took notice of reputable links instead of your usual cop out argument claiming pop science, you would see I gave reputable substantiation of my claim at post 84 by Sean Carroll.
But perhaps Sean is not aware of your "god like nature".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One of the notable greats is our friend Hans Bethe. Nice to see you at least have some good references to obtain your many figures from, and your extended descriptions...that is admirable and obvious. It would though have been appropriate to reveal where your mainstream figures had come from. But that's just the way you operate right?
Irrespective Bethe certainly does not invalidate the fact that although gravitational collapse/Implosion does initiate the S/N [I don't believe anyone has denied that] the S/N itself is an explosion in every sense of the word and in every type of S/N.
Your real problem though is two fold...[1] Interpretation.[2] fabricating your own dialogue.

A S/N explosion is just that...an explosion, despite your pretense to avoid that fact. Just as DE is thought to be a constant force attributed to spacetime.
And please note, mainstream science is mainstream science simply because that appears to be the most valid solution in describing an observation, as distinct from the crank interpretations that science forums such as this are flooded with.

What you need to understand is that this current question is not, and never was, an in depth discussion/debate on stellar evolution and S/N.
That as usual is just your means of muddying the waters, and avoiding the necessity of admitting you are wrong again.
The question is whether a S/N is an explosion or an Implosion.
That was answered long before you decided to do your thing.

 

Apologies for my part in dragging this off topic Dan. These things happen.

 

If the gravitationally collapsing star is big enough, the collapse of the inner part will not stop, and a black hole is formed. The outer parts will be, of course, thrown away, and all this looks from outside like an explosion. But for the inner part, the part which, then, forms the black hole, the implosion does not stop until the singularity inside the black hole is reached.

This inner, imploding part of a large enough star collapsing into a black hole may, in principle, locally look like a time-inverted big bang. This is certainly not very probable, because for a real collapse there would be always some nontrivial rotation, and the big bang is a non-rotating solution. And it would be only a very small part of a big bang which would be similar. But such a similarity is in principle possible.

This is the point I wanted to make, which has started all this off-topic SN discussion. And this point remains valid. (To make you happy, I have also made an error, namely not mentioned that the supernova has to be large enough for this, smaller stars do not give black holes.) It is interesting because it shows that claims about a fundamental difference between these two things, like "explosion in space" vs. "of space" or so, are incompatible with GR in its spacetime interpretation. They would require some additional elements, something like a motion of space in spacetime, a concept which does not exist in the spacetime interpretation.









Your real problem though is two fold...[1] Interpretation.[2] fabricating your own dialogue.






A S/N explosion is just that...an explosion, despite your pretense to avoid that fact. Just as DE is thought to be a constant force attributed to spacetime.
And please note, mainstream science is mainstream science simply because that appears to be the most valid solution in describing an observation, as distinct from the crank interpretations that science forums such as this are flooded with.

What you need to understand is that this current question is not, and never was, an in depth discussion/debate on stellar evolution and S/N.
That as usual is just your means of muddying the waters, and avoiding the necessity of admitting you are wrong again.
The question is whether a S/N is an explosion or an Implosion.
That was answered long before you decided to do your thing.[/QUOTE]

 

Sorry Schmelzer, you are playing semantics and avoiding the issue.
Even if the star is large enough so that the gravitational collapse continues pass the Schwarzchild radius, the outer layers still explode in what we see as a S/N.
Stars like our Sun, will of course "throw off" its outer layers as opposed to an explosion.

It doesn't make me happy at all...I'm not playing games as others are apt to do.
Errors are errors are errors, and I certainly believe you are wrong in your interpretation.
In picking up your error though, admittedly I was driven somewhat by your previous taking me out of context and acting as you did. So yes, I had an agenda of sorts.

 

Paddoboy,

You had problem with my above conclusion and messed up this thread, what is wrong with this conclusion ? Why are you dancing around ?


Please refer to the paper by Bethe and Brown...
http://www.cenbg.in2p3.fr/heberge/EcoleJoliotCurie/coursannee/transparents/SN - Bethe e Brown.pdf

It is a good theoretical approach paper, pl refer

Pag#42, Column #3 Para # 3

Page #45, Column # 1 para #4 & discussion thereof..

 

Some popular publications talk of outer parts getting thrown away during big enough star collapse, but is it really suported by some Physics? Very unlikely, I have not come across.

Irrespective of the size of the original star mass (say > around 25-30 solar which would enable BH formation), the inner core almost all Neutron/Nuclear matter Core (which is responsible for shock wave) has limiting size before it falls inside its Schwarzchild radius. There is no possibility of rebound and shockwave, so outer layers cannot be fobbed off (beyond certain mass) like in Super Nova. Yes, there could be some detailing about the merging of a very large remaining outer portion of the same star with the inner core which has gone into its Schwarzchild radius. This can be studied as accretion, as the rate of fall from EH (for innermost core) to singularity will be much faster than the infall of remaining portion. I do not know whether there will be some temporary physical discontinuity (somekind of detachment due to possibility of differential fall), in that case it will be true accretion and acrretion process events would come by, but still no observational evidence.