David Levy Posted December 18, 2016 Share Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) As usual, the science gets into wrong conclusion about the following evidence. http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-evidence-of-a-planet-eating-death-star Two new planets discovered… but there used to be three. . "When the team analysed the star's composition, they found four times more lithium than they expected for a star of its age – 6 billion years – along with evidence of a surplus of refractory elements: heat-resistant metals that are abundant in rocky planets. When the team analysed the star's composition, they found four times more lithium than they expected for a star of its age – 6 billion years – along with evidence of a surplus of refractory elements: heat-resistant metals that are abundant in rocky planets." So, if I understand it correctly, the total quantity of Lithium in that star is four times more than the expected quantity in a star at that age. So, why they do not consider an option that the age of the star is bigger than 6 Billion years? In order to get that amount of lithium the age of the star should be 24 Billion years (I assume). Well it is quite clear – that conclusion contradicts the age of the universe based on BBT. It could be a disaster for that false theory. (The age of a star in our neighborhood is bigger than the whole age of the universe!!!) So, in order to solve this contradiction, they have found great idea - "Scientists have found evidence of a planet-eating 'Death Star'" Sorry it is a severe mistake. What else is needed for the science to understand at last that the age of the universe is much more than 13.8 Billion years??? Edited December 18, 2016 by David Levy -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 18, 2016 Share Posted December 18, 2016 So you think they should ignore the data about the age of the star because that would be more consistent with your personal beliefs? Sorry but that isn't how science works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Levy Posted December 18, 2016 Author Share Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) So you think they should ignore the data about the age of the star because that would be more consistent with your personal beliefs? Sorry but that isn't how science works. Sorry, I disagree. It is clear evidence that the age of that star should be significantly higher than the expected 6 Billion years (Based on BBT). The science is forcing the evidence to meet this false theory - instead of the other way. Therefore their conclusion is totally wrong!!! Edited December 18, 2016 by David Levy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 18, 2016 Share Posted December 18, 2016 Please explain how the data indicating the age of the star is wrong. Otherwise you are saying we should accept your opinion. As your opinions are always wrong, no one is going to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted December 18, 2016 Share Posted December 18, 2016 "consumption" of near orbit planets, is pretty common, for stars which are becoming red giants.. As their radius is increasing with time, the all planets with orbit within new radius must evaporate and/or being consumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Levy Posted December 18, 2016 Author Share Posted December 18, 2016 There is another reason why that conclusion is totally unrealistic. The mass of the sun is 332,900 Earth masses. In other words, the mass of the Earth is 0.000003 of the sun. Super-Neptune estimated as of 20–80 M⊕ (Earth Mass). Hence, its mass is 0.00006008 - 0.00024031 Sun mass. The question: How could it be that a planet in a size of Super Neptune, which is less than 0.00024 Sun mass, can have so severe impact on the Lithium quantity at that star? Hence, the idea that this star eats its super-Neptune planet is just ridicules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 18, 2016 Share Posted December 18, 2016 I don't see any evidence or any alternate model here. Just an observation that we have an anomaly, with a possible explanation. Not enough to qualify for a discussion in speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Levy Posted December 18, 2016 Author Share Posted December 18, 2016 "consumption" of near orbit planets, is pretty common, for stars which are becoming red giants.. As their radius is increasing with time, the all planets with orbit within new radius must evaporate and/or being consumed. It isn't stated that this star is red giants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 18, 2016 Share Posted December 18, 2016 There is another reason why that conclusion is totally unrealistic. The mass of the sun is 332,900 Earth masses. In other words, the mass of the Earth is 0.000003 of the sun. Super-Neptune estimated as of 20–80 M⊕ (Earth Mass). Hence, its mass is 0.00006008 - 0.00024031 Sun mass. The question: How could it be that a planet in a size of Super Neptune, which is less than 0.00024 Sun mass, can have so severe impact on the Lithium quantity at that star? Hence, the idea that this star eats its super-Neptune planet is just ridicules. You could have presented an analysis of this. But you didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts