Star Found Shooting Water "Bullets"

[yellow jacket]

Maybe this has been posted already. Along with the recent revelation that the moon has hundreds of times the amount of water previously thought. This new information on a young star that spews water from its poles seems to be trying to get the point across that "water is a lot more common in outer space than previously thought". A lot of past searches for ET life have been centered on the idea that they would need liquid water to survive. I think its interesting.

Water in the moons surface:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...dings-science/

Star Found Shooting Water "Bullets"
Stellar sprinklers may help irrigate cosmos, study suggests.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...26fd754fa9.jpg

Andrew Fazekas

for National Geographic News

Published June 13, 2011

Seven hundred and fifty light-years from Earth, a young, sunlike star has been found with jets that blast epic quantities of water into interstellar space, shooting out droplets that move faster than a speeding bullet.

The discovery suggests that protostars may be seeding the universe with water. These stellar embryos shoot jets of material from their north and south poles as their growth is fed by infalling dust that circles the bodies in vast disks.

"If we picture these jets as giant hoses and the water droplets as bullets, the amount shooting out equals a hundred million times the water flowing through the Amazon River every second," said Lars Kristensen, a postdoctoral astronomer at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

"We are talking about velocities reaching 200,000 kilometers [124,000 miles] per hour, which is about 80 times faster than bullets flying out of a machine gun," said Kristensen, lead author of the new study detailing the discovery, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

(Related: "Dimmest Stars in Universe Spotted?")

Water Vanishes, Only to Reappear

Located in the northern constellation Perseus, the protostar is no more than a hundred thousand years old and remains swaddled in a large cloud—gas and dust from which the star was born.

Using an infrared instrument on the European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory, researchers were able to peer through the cloud and detect telltale light signatures of hydrogen and oxygen atoms—the building blocks of water—moving on and around the star.

After tracing the paths of these atoms, the team concluded that water forms on the star, where temperatures are a few thousand degrees Celsius. But once the droplets enter the outward-spewing jets of gas, 180,000-degree-Fahrenheit (100,000-degree-Celsius) temperatures blast the water back into gaseous form.

Once the hot gases hit the much cooler surrounding material—at about 5,000 times the distance from the sun to Earth—they decelerate, creating a shock front where the gases cool down rapidly, condense, and reform as water, Kristensen said.

(Related: "Coldest Star Found—No Hotter Than Fresh Coffee.")

Stellar Sprinkler Nourishes Galactic "Garden"

What's really exciting about the discovery is that it appears to be a stellar rite of passage, the researchers say, which may shed new light on the earliest stages of our own sun's life—and how water fits into that picture.

"We are only now beginning to understand that sunlike stars probably all undergo a very energetic phase when they are young," Kristensen said. "It's at this point in their lives when they spew out a lot of high-velocity material—part of which we now know is water."

Like a celestial sprinkler system, the star may be enriching the interstellar medium—thin gases that float in the voids between stars. And because the hydrogen and oxygen in water are key components of the dusty disks in which stars form, such protostar sprinklers may be encouraging the growth of further stars, the study says.

(Related: "Supersonic 'Hail' Seeds Star Systems With Water.")

The water-jet phenomenon seen in Perseus is "probably a short-lived phase all protostars go through," Kristensen said.

"But if we have enough of these sprinklers going off throughout the galaxy—this starts to become interesting on many levels."

[stompk]

They can tell it's water 750 light years from us, but can't figure out
if there's water on the moon...Give me a break.

[upsetbrit]

Indeed Stompk.

It throws up the possibility, if true, that our own planet may have been gizzed on by our star long ago. Maybe a passing star, or cloud of water also caused the mythical floods that are embedded in many cultures. The water may have literally "fell from heaven".

[nelo]

Originally Posted by upsetbrit

Indeed Stompk.

It throws up the possibility, if true, that our own planet may have been gizzed on by our star long ago. Maybe a passing star, or cloud of water also caused the mythical floods that are embedded in many cultures. The water may have literally "fell from heaven".

Wow, what a theory!, i like it.

[food4thought]

Originally Posted by nelo

Wow, what a theory!, i like it.

Especially the part about our planet getting "jizzed" on. LOL

[hadabusa]

Originally Posted by stompk

They can tell it's water 750 light years from us, but can't figure out
if there's water on the moon...Give me a break.

distances are very easy to figure out compares to composition, you utter knucklehead

[yellow jacket]

I'm glad there is an intelligent discussion going on here

[martg]

Originally Posted by hadabusa

distances are very easy to figure out compares to composition, you utter knucklehead

The measurement of composition and distance is the same process, it's called spectroscopy.
analysing light spectrographically shows black lines at specific frequency patterns that shows the elements that light has come into contact with, by measuring how far the black bands have move down the frequency spectrum (redshift) they can give an approximate distance.

[rreeve]

Originally Posted by stompk

They can tell it's water 750 light years from us, but can't figure out
if there's water on the moon...Give me a break.

+1 Stompk

Mainstream scientists and especially astrophysicists REALLY annoy sometimes. They really think the public is incredibly stupid. Granted the people who believe their nonsense may be but that ain't all of us.

What MOST people fail to realise is us humans have only got a very tiny point of reference in this universe and that is called earth. Considering how TINY earth is, do you think its rational to believe we are really capable of knowing what something is many light years away. Granted, it may have the same light/radiation/microwave signature of something here on earth such as water but in reality that means zilch. Most of astrophysics is based upon assumptions within assumptions within another assumption that's based upon a theory that's 20% possible.

Its laughable really that people even consider some of the stuff they claim for a second. I call it reality propaganda and its all political money motivated research that's like a whole economy within itself.

I'm starting to think a lot of this mainstream science is designed to keep us trapped in this physical reality prison. Its like astrophysics is the science of describing a wall and they believe they can understand whats on the other side of the wall by looking at the color of the bricks on this side. Also, while I'm on a roll ranting about mainstream science, I also believe mathematics is a futile tool of scientific discovery that only serves to keep us trapped firmly in this reality.

[rreeve]

Originally Posted by martg

The measurement of composition and distance is the same process, it's called spectroscopy.
analysing light spectrographically shows black lines at specific frequency patterns that shows the elements that light has come into contact with, by measuring how far the black bands have move down the frequency spectrum (redshift) they can give an approximate distance.

Yeah, and sugar looks like salt.

[martg]

I already explained how they know the composition of distant stars.

am I fucking invisible?

[martg]

Originally Posted by rreeve

Yeah, and sugar looks like salt.

wtf does that mean?

[rreeve]

Originally Posted by martg

wtf does that mean?

It means we have such an irrelevant point of reference in this universe it makes it absolutely pointless to even speculate over distant objects because in an infinite universe any distant object has infinite possibilities and I have no doubt that many distant objects may appear as one thing to us using all our light measuring, spectrum analysing gadgets and such, but in reality we have no way of knowing if its something else entirely that we haven't even discovered yet and have no knowledge of. There is literally infinite possibilities.

But for the laymen, sugar looks like salt.

90% of astrophysics is based upon theories within theories so to me its just a futile hobby of human imagination. Whenever I have read a paper or an article on astrophysics it usually has more holes than a sponge.

[martg]

no idea what you mean by irrelevant point of reference, do you mean the earth, the distant star or the practice of analysing light spectra?

The process of spectroscopy is not some vague house of cards theory, it's a process that has been used for 50 years in both astronomy and lab experiments and is 100% accurate for determining which elements a photon has interacted with.

The spectra can not only give the composition and approximate distance of the star but also when used in conjunction with the apparent brightness can give a fairly good idea of the size too.
This is tried and tested physics.

[largejack]

Originally Posted by upsetbrit

Indeed Stompk.

It throws up the possibility, if true, that our own planet may have been gizzed on by our star long ago. Maybe a passing star, or cloud of water also caused the mythical floods that are embedded in many cultures. The water may have literally "fell from heaven".

Yeah, this star must have had too many Nukey Browns, wandered off course and pissed all over us?

Just as well it didn't find a curry house that night???

[ganjamonster]

Originally Posted by stompk

They can tell it's water 750 light years from us, but can't figure out
if there's water on the moon...Give me a break.

see quote below. as for water on the moon, it is buried beneath rock, dust etc so you can't use the technique described in the quote below.

Originally Posted by martg

The measurement of composition and distance is the same process, it's called spectroscopy.
analysing light spectrographically shows black lines at specific frequency patterns that shows the elements that light has come into contact with, by measuring how far the black bands have move down the frequency spectrum (redshift) they can give an approximate distance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by rreeve

Yeah, and sugar looks like salt.

sugar does not look like salt. salt is round whereas sugar is cubed

[rreeve]

Originally Posted by martg

The process of spectroscopy is not some vague house of cards theory,

That is EXACTLY what it is. It creates assumpions that are based on what we've got to compare the data to here on earth and suggesting anything else is just kidding yourself.

When I say a point of reference, I mean the earth. To explain what I mean, we can only compare observations against what we have discovered on earth and considering the universe is infinitely vast we have no possible way of knowing what else is out there yet to be discovered. So, even though our technology many tell one thing, in reality, there is infinite possibilities it could be something else entirely.

Now I understand how spectroscopy works but when you consider this highly probably variable, it introduces far too many alternatives so its literally a futile exercise for something so far away. Think about it, for all we know from our very limited perspective of the universe, there could be whole new branches of physics yet to be discovered, there could be laws of nature we hadn't even considered, there could even be a brand new force that is incomprehensible to us at the moment. As I said, astrophysics is mostly based upon theories within theories within assumption after assumption and that's hardly scientific in my opinion.

A good analogy would be, imagine someone who only knew words that began with the letter 'B' and this person owned a dictionary that only contained the words beginning with 'B'. Now imagine this person having to write a 400 page novel. He has such a tiny point of reference compared to the limitless possibilities of a full dictionary so trying to write a 400 novel is pointless.
I know, its not a brilliant analogy but its the best I could come up with.

[rreeve]

Originally Posted by ganjamonster

sugar does not look like salt. salt is round whereas sugar is cubed

Smoking ganja does make people a bit pedantic so I forgive you.

[martg]

Originally Posted by rreeve

That is EXACTLY what it is. It creates assumpions that are based on what we've got to compare the data to here on earth and suggesting anything else is just kidding yourself.

When I say a point of reference, I mean the earth. To explain what I mean, we can only compare observations against what we have discovered on earth and considering the universe is infinitely vast we have no possible way of knowing what else is out there yet to be discovered. So, even though our technology many tell one thing, in reality, there is infinite possibilities it could be something else entirely.

Now I understand how spectroscopy works but when you consider this highly probably variable, it introduces far too many alternatives so its literally a futile exercise for something so far away. Think about it, for all we know from our very limited perspective of the universe, there could be whole new branches of physics yet to be discovered, there could be laws of nature we hadn't even considered, there could even be a brand new force that is incomprehensible to us at the moment. As I said, astrophysics is mostly based upon theories within theories within assumption after assumption and that's hardly scientific in my opinion.

A good analogy would be, imagine someone who only knew words that began with the letter 'B' and this person owned a dictionary that only contained the words beginning with 'B'. Now imagine this person having to write a 400 page novel. He has such a tiny point of reference compared to the limitless possibilities of a full dictionary so trying to write a 400 novel is pointless.
I know, its not a brilliant analogy but its the best I could come up with.

I understand the analogies you make but you are confusing theoretical science with experimental science.
There is no assumptions involved with analysing light that has been into contact with an element, the experiment is simple and reproducable 100% of the time in the lab or through telescopes giving exact results every time.
When analysing light from stars including our own sun we find specific elements that are linked to the stars size and colour.
This is where the star classifications come from.
I realise there are areas of physics that are stated as fact that are really theoretical but the process of analysing light is centuries old and well understood.