Requiem for Relativity

More
15 years 5 months ago #22791 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
I thought I'd see what I could find on the 1006 C.E. nova and found this paper. articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/JH...05//0000099.000.html Worth a read but if you haven't the time look at the conclusion. There seems to be a bit of a problem with where the 1054 crab nova and the 1006 nova are and were. A few degrees for the crab! Now that has to be worth a look at. If our solar system barycentre is out from what we normally believe it to be, then the historically reported nova positions should be out as well.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #22792 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
The hexagonal "nanodiamonds" that formed at the Younger Dryas, might be toxic, or part of a destructive physical reaction. What if they weren't from a meteor, but were from an unknown force acting on the CO2 in our atmosphere? Maybe that's why it's important to get atmospheric CO2 levels down.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #22798 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
hexagonal nanodiamonds sound like slightly flattened icosahedrons, I can't see how they could be toxic, they shouldn't want to combine with anything in the body. The trouble is, that to make them we are talking about tremendous heat and pressure. yet there's no sign of a meteorite strike in the United States. Some sort of Tunguska like event is proposed but for the life of me I can't see how it could produce diamonds of any size. Perhaps we were hit by an airburst comet like fragment that already contained nanodiamonds? Again we have a problem, in that comets shouldn't contain them. So assume that they were picked up by some space bound object as a contaminant. No idea about this one at all.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #22799 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
I took a look at the pressures and temperature need to produce synthetic diamonds in the lab. To do it indirectly, where a thin layer of metal, such as chromium is used with graphite, a pressure of 100 000 atmospheres and a temperature of 2500 C is needed. Directly, it needs 200 000 atmospheres at 5000 C

In the samples looked at we also have a number of fullerenes but I haven't seen a detailed breakdown of these. The only way I can think that we end up with layers of nanodiamond, given the absence of a massive great crater, is to assume that what hit us carried the nanodiamonds with it. That adds weight to Tom's exploding planet hypothesis. The question has to be, can we look at the spectrums of some asteroid bodies to see fullerenes?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #23590 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Joe, I've been looking at these strange nanodiamonds. They can be made by smacking graphite sheets together but they can also be made from methane under pressure. The core of your planet can be made from diamond but a diamond in the hexagonal form (Lonsdaleite) then we'd probably have an "ocean" of fullerenes. The whole thing would superconduct. There would be electrical storms at the surface that would make Jupiter's storms look like balmy days. An Io near the planet would be torn apart by flux. Pure Lonsdaleite can e much stronger than diamond, about 58% stronger.

If the planet has a ring system this could be made up of dust and ice but also nanodiamond, thrown out by storm sprites. These are not nice gleaming gems but a dull yellow. High refractive index though, they should red shift background stars.

On Tom's exploding planet hypothesis, there's still the problem of why there's so much organic matter in carbonaceous meteors. Here the biomass is about 100 million times less than the planet mass, for the asteroid belt it's about one percent.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #23512 by Larry Burford
<b>[Stoat] "Here the biomass is about 100 million times less than the planet mass, for the asteroid belt it's about one percent."</b>

Do you have any comment on Tom's explanation for this?

It seems fairly straight forward to me. IOW, based on the EPH this outcome should be expected.

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.363 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum