Finding clouds of water floating in the atmosphere of an alien world is a significant find. Now, astronomers have reported preliminary findings that water clouds have been detected in the atmosphere of a brown dwarf, a mere 7.3 light-years from Earth.
But don't dream of an alien planet with white, fluffy clouds rolling over a habitable terrain, brown dwarfs are cool failed stars with thick churning atmospheres, the antithesis of a life-giving habitat (as we know it).
A couple problems and ideas:
1. Brown dwarfs synthesize hydrogen gas with oxygen gas making water, so this finding is no surprise if the general theory of stellar metamorphosis is taken into account
2. It will cool and shrink as the other material deposits as solid/liquid structure undergoing basic thermodynamic phase transitions called deposition and condensation. Which means it will become an "alien planet with white, fluffy clouds rolling over a habitable terrain" in its future when it is much more evolved.
3. This is not a "failed star", it is an intermediately aged star. The "failed" nonsense is a direct result of scientists thinking stars are fusion reactors, they are not, they are giant electrochemical/thermochemical events which are taking elements and combining them into molecules.
4. It is not the anti-thesis of a life giving habitat, it is the thesis of a life producing habitat in the earliest stages of life formation when the first molecules are synthesized like water, methane, amino acids, etc. In the general theory of stellar metamorphosis life formation is a direct result of the evolution of a star, and this brown dwarf is intermediate stages.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
1. Brown dwarfs synthesize hydrogen gas with oxygen gas making water
You start off with an unsupported claim!!! Then it gets worse with highly speculative pronouncements!
We have gone over this.....What natural mechanism produces water? Please, no more hand waving or distracting tangents!
Just because there is a lot of O and H found in the universe, does not mean that it goes directly into producing water! If you do not have any idea how, why not say so? I don't know how it's done, and looking at other threads, there is nothing there to suggest that an abundance of H and O will react to form water.
Although we have to wait until NASA's James Webb Telescope launches in 2018 to acquire a spectra of the infrared radiation before we know for certain if it is indeed water,
At least they admit they don't know for certain!!
We have gone over this.....What natural mechanism produces water? Please, no more hand waving or distracting tangents!
2H +magic & O = H2O will not work!!!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Another part of the theory that I have to add is thermolysis, or the breakdown of chemical bonds with heat. This would lead to their subsequent combination in different forms in different areas of the star during its evolution into a life hosting star.
Its pretty interesting stuff and I would assume a lot of this happens in various places on evolving stars as they cool and shrink.
Ammonium dichromate on heating yields nitrogen, water and chromium(III) oxide.
Ammonium nitrate on strong heating yields dinitrogen oxide ("laughing gas") and water.
Ammonium nitrite on heating yields nitrogen gas and water.
Barium azide on heating yields barium metal and nitrogen gas.
Sodium nitrate on heating yields sodium nitrite and oxygen gas.
So a few bonds could be made during one phase of the star's evolution, decompose in another phase and then combine into another completely different composition. This would be much more complex and chemistry oriented than just saying rocks on the Earth are just squeezed and heated together via the rock cycle. I have found out that its also geology that has been ignoring chemical reactions during earlier stages of a star's evolution into a life hosting star like Earth.
GaryN
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Just because there is a lot of O and H found in the universe, does not mean that it goes directly into producing water! If you do not have any idea how, why not say so? I don't know how it's done, and looking at other threads, there is nothing there to suggest that an abundance of H and O will react to form water.
I have seen huge amounts of rain being created by a little puck shaped 'cloud', in an otherwise clear blue sky for as far as you could see, above an area of the Gold Reef in South Africa. Atmospheric electrical conditions are very spectacular at that elevation (6000 ft or so). The little grey puck, altitude difficult to judge but I'd guess at about 20,000 ft, appeared to have a mist around it, with streaks of what seemed to be lightning going around the circumference of the puck, and a very concentrated and well defined shaft of rain leaving the bottom, but when that shaft of rain came over our car, we had to stop in the middle of the road as it was impossible to see where we were going. The air became a dark green, and there was lightning all around us. Very scary. The rain lasted just a couple of minutes as the cloud and water shaft passed over and moved off over the fields. So scale that event up a few orders of magnitude, and I could imagine huge amounts of water being produced by something like a mega-CME event creating the same thing over the poles, and if those events occur periodically, may have filled the oceans to their present levels. It has been suggested that the Great Flood may have added 200-400 ft to ocean levels. I think I may need to invest in a bigger brollie.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
GaryN wrote:
Just because there is a lot of O and H found in the universe, does not mean that it goes directly into producing water! If you do not have any idea how, why not say so? I don't know how it's done, and looking at other threads, there is nothing there to suggest that an abundance of H and O will react to form water.
I have seen huge amounts of rain being created by a little puck shaped 'cloud', in an otherwise clear blue sky for as far as you could see, above an area of the Gold Reef in South Africa. Atmospheric electrical conditions are very spectacular at that elevation (6000 ft or so). The little grey puck, altitude difficult to judge but I'd guess at about 20,000 ft, appeared to have a mist around it, with streaks of what seemed to be lightning going around the circumference of the puck, and a very concentrated and well defined shaft of rain leaving the bottom, but when that shaft of rain came over our car, we had to stop in the middle of the road as it was impossible to see where we were going. The air became a dark green, and there was lightning all around us. Very scary. The rain lasted just a couple of minutes as the cloud and water shaft passed over and moved off over the fields. So scale that event up a few orders of magnitude, and I could imagine huge amounts of water being produced by something like a mega-CME event creating the same thing over the poles, and if those events occur periodically, may have filled the oceans to their present levels. It has been suggested that the Great Flood may have added 200-400 ft to ocean levels. I think I may need to invest in a bigger brollie.
Interesting...
I guess what I'm saying is that since we have lots of water on Earth, and water is O and H, then a lot of O and H goes towards the direct production of water. Heck, water is even in rocks! Plaster of paris becomes gypsum even:
I also just calculated the joules of energy that would have been produced as a result of oxygen gas and hydrogen gas being combined to make the Earth's oceans and it was a colossal 5.5*10^29 joules. In other words, for Earth to have formed water in the amount that it exists today on the surface, the Earth must have had storms larger than the Earth itself (to dissipate the energy production effectively).
The energy released from just hydrogen gas and oxygen gas combining would equal 5 times the rotational energy of the entire Earth itself as it currently is! A single average hurricane only dissipates about 5 * 10^19 Joules per day.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
GaryN, thank you, but getting caught in a rain storm is not seeing water being produced..
Maybe it was time being folded into a very wet dimension ?
That is what you did! Show how more complex compounds are formed without water, then break them down to water!!!! If you can do that, then we have a mechanism for water production.......please, no more hand waving!
GaryN
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
GaryN, thank you, but getting caught in a rain storm is not seeing water being produced.
The amount of water that came out of that tiny, lone, puck shaped cloud could not possibly have been already in that cloud. It was being created, right there, no other explanation as far as I am concerned.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
There are reports of frogs, fish, and other animals falling from the sky in parts of UK.
Water or frogs, it's all electrical...
I found strong evidence of water formation:
It took Herschel's far-infrared vision to see, finally, a clear spectral signature of the water vapor.
Turns out the previous estimate was wrong, here I show a more accurate estimate of 3.6*1025 Joules. This means the energy radiated from hydrogen gas combining with oxygen gas to make the water in the Earth's oceans was:
36,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules
For those who don't know, a Joule is a unit of energy.
It is the amount energy required to move 1 kg over a distance of 1 meter in 1 second.
We absolutely must remind ourselves that the vast majority of the energy a star radiates as it evolves is in the form of chemical energy. So to make the chemicals we see on the Earth we must understand that energy was released to make them. No radioactive material was needed to make stars radiate, they radiate because of the chemicals being synthesized in vast quantities, as the majority of the reactions are spontaneous synthesis exothermic reactions.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It would also help to try and explain flaring events on the Sun as being caused by thermal decomposition on large scales.
The reaction is usually endothermic as heat is required to break chemical bonds in the compound undergoing decomposition. If decomposition is sufficiently exothermic, a positive feedback loop is created producing thermal runaway and possibly an explosion.
The decomposition of hydrogen gas in large amounts would cause one hell of an explosion.
The specific chemical energy of compressed hydrogen gas (70 MPa) is 142 MJ/Kilogram, which is sufficiently larger than gasoline at 46 MJ/Kilogram. Its energy density is so high in fact that they use it in rocket engines such as the RS-25 used in the Space Shuttle (now retired).
The real question we should ask then is how much hydrogen decomposes to cause such as massive explosion such as a solar flare? Plus how much hydrogen per flare size is decomposed?
Another question that concerns me is why they completely ignore how explosive hydrogen is when it decomposes, and the fact that the Sun contains a god awful amount of it:
Flares occur when accelerated charged particles, mainly electrons, interact with the plasma medium. Scientific research has shown that the phenomenon of magnetic reconnection is responsible for the acceleration of the charged particles.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
why they completely ignore how explosive hydrogen is
Still hand waving! Maybe real scientists realize that plasma is in a state that doesn't.
New measurements from the Herschel Space Observatory show that comet Hartley 2, which comes from the distant Kuiper Belt, contains water with the same chemical signature as Earth's oceans.----------------How these objects ever came to possess the telltale oceanic water is puzzling. ---------Our results with Herschel suggest that comets could have played a major role in bringing vast amounts of water to an early Earth,
"Some elements detected in meteorites reveal that, long ago, these rocks contained a form of beryllium: this is quite puzzling, as we can't quite understand how it got there," explains Dr Dominik.
The formation of this isotope – beryllium-10 – in the Universe is an intricate puzzle of its own. Astronomers know that it is not produced in the interior of stars, like some other elements, nor in the supernova explosion that happens at the end of a massive star's life.
The majority of beryllium-10 was formed in collisions of very energetic particles with heavier elements like oxygen. But since this isotope decays very quickly into other elements, it must have been produced just before it was incorporated in the rocks that would later appear on Earth as meteorites.
Shown to illustrate that complex chemical reactions are taking place, which are hidden by the hand waving conclusions.
frosty regions where gases are able to freeze and coat dust grains.--------Since different gases freeze at different distances from the star, snow lines are thought to exist as concentric rings of grains encased in the various frozen gases—a ring of grains coated with water ice, a ring of grains coated with carbon dioxide, and so on.
An artist's concept of the snow line in TW Hydrae showing water ice covered dust grains in the inner disc (blue) and carbon monoxide ice covered grains in the outer disc (green). The transition from blue to green marks the carbon monoxide snow line. -
Astronomers have finally found direct proof that almost all water present in Jupiter's stratosphere, an intermediate atmospheric layer, was delivered by comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which famously struck the planet in 1994.
Well, dust seems to be part of the water in space observation. Also appears that compounds are made then broken down, sometimes quickly. Not much explanation as to why would gases freeze to dust. That sounds like hail and rain formation in Earth's atmosphere. These dust particles must be charged in such a way to attract and hold gases. thoughts?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The reaction is usually endothermic as heat is required to break chemical bonds in the compound undergoing decomposition. If decomposition is sufficiently exothermic, a positive feedback loop is created producing thermal runaway and possibly an explosion.
The decomposition of hydrogen gas in large amounts would cause one hell of an explosion.
One of us does not understand compound decomposition...
Can you explain how -H decomposes?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I will also try and get something down concerning water in its gaseous form to water in its liquid form and the enthalpy of vaporization (condensation) with that. All that needs to happen with that is the signs need to be reversed.
This includes other compounds as well, but does not include the pressures involved. Of course if the pressure is higher the temperature would be higher, so I could apply a different rule to account for the pressure change. (Because the interior pressure of brown dwarfs is much higher and more dynamic than standard conditions).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
The reaction is usually endothermic as heat is required to break chemical bonds in the compound undergoing decomposition. If decomposition is sufficiently exothermic, a positive feedback loop is created producing thermal runaway and possibly an explosion.
The decomposition of hydrogen gas in large amounts would cause one hell of an explosion.
One of us does not understand compound decomposition...
Can you explain how -H decomposes?
compound decomposition with hydrogen gas means the hydrogen splits which then combines with the oxygen in the environment making an explosion proportional to the amount given.
Hydrogen gas is diatomic. When it splits it decomposes which then combines with the oxygen (as an oxidizer) to make water. This is why water can come out of the Sun and even drop into the Sun further cooling material which can also drop with it (because water has a high specific heat capacity). The RS-25 rocket engines on the space shuttle make water as a by product because its fuel is H2 and O2. This is basic.
I also never said H splits. Even if it did it would be ionization, yet in the Sun a lot of the hydrogen is already ionized. It just has to recombine with other hydrogen making H2 gas. This is known as plasma recombination, meaning the H goes from plasma to gas, releasing heat and light. This is also basic.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
To reference your "hand waving" nonsense, you still have yet to acknowledge the entire purpose of this thread, to acknowledge that the discovery was made in that stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself, the star is the young planet and the planet is the ancient evolved star.
To you, a "planet" is mutually exclusive of "star", so I don't see how any of this talk is even productive for you, and I also do not even understand why you are even commenting if the main purpose of this thread is never acknowledged?
