Star Goes Rogue in Untimely Collision

It's a solid doomsday prediction that in about 5 billion years the dying sun will expand as a bloated red giant and engulf the Earth.

But imagine if in just a few weeks the middle-aged sun suddenly ballooned out to the orbit of Saturn and immediately vaporized Earth and most of the other planets in the solar system! And, even before this happened, imagine that every morning you awoke the sun was ever more sweltering until it began evaporating the oceans, spontaneously starting forests ablaze, and melting asphalt!

This sounds like the stuff of a far-out science fiction movie. But astronomers think that they actually witnessed such an even in 2002. A sun-like star on the edge of our galaxy abruptly grew 600,000 times brighter in a few weeks and ballooned 1,000 times its diameter. Alien astronomers on neighboring galaxies would have dutifully noted it as it briefly becoming one of the brightest stars in our Milky Way galaxy.

Now, eight years later astronomers remain puzzled as to what happened to the star, called V838 Monocerotis, and are still doing interstellar forensic detective work.

The blast was not a supernova -- the explosive death of a massive star -- because a red giant is now in the location of the outburst. The event was too powerful to be a nova, where a white dwarf companion to a giant star explodes.

The brilliant hiccup of light from the flashbulb-like outburst continues reverberating off interstellar dust clouds. This light echo has been photo documented by the Hubble Space Telescope as one of the most bizarre faster-than-light illusions ever seen in space.

The dilemma has been to explain how a star can go rogue -- or rather go rouge -- almost literally overnight.

Things have gotten only stranger. A team has just published their observations of X-rays coming from the red giant star. Red giants are cool stars and don’t emit X-rays. To do so they would have to spin rapidly and have entangled magnetic fields. The loopy fields would entrap gas, heat it to millions of degrees, and then snap like rubber bands to emit titanic stellar flares.

But the spin rate of a red giant should be slow. By swelling in size the rotational rate slows down to conserve angular momentum, like a twirling figure skater extending their arms to de-spin. A rapidly spinning red giant could be forensic evidence for a stellar head on collision that preceded the outburst.

The idea being kicked around is that V838 Mon. was originally a triple-star system. A gravitational billiard game among the three stars sent two of them careening together and explosively merge into a single star. The heat from the impact caused the new star to swell up, like a runaway hot air balloon. This is supported by the observation that a few weeks after the initial burst, the stars suddenly got an additional 1,000 times brighter in just on day. This might have been from the nuclear cores of the stars merging.

There is a stellar companion that could be the culprit that stated the mess. It was observed as a hot blue star in the vicinity of the precursor star to the red giant. But it mysteriously vanished after the blast. The belief is that it was engulfed in a cloud of dust blown out by the collision and is hidden from view for now.

Thankfully, V838 Mon is only a few million years old and dwells in a young open stars cluster. So it is not old enough for life as we know it to have arisen and evolved.

But imagine the terror and gloom of living under a planet-wide death sentence by knowing the exact time your entire world and planetary system was going to go up in smoke!

>The free marked (sic) of ideas

Am I talking to a 10 year old or are you typing on a Dvorak Keyboard? The letter “d” is not next to the letter “t” on a QWERTY keyboard.

>The free marked of ideas did not reject your young Earth
>creationism because society is ungodly;

You’re badly uninformed. Go watch “Expelled” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed and get back to me.

>The scientist herself saying that the claim was
>unsubstantiated isn’t a “logical, fact filled, rigorous
>case”? Delusional.

Whether you’re right about what she is saying about what she thinks is right about the blood cells, is completely immaterial to the 3 step case I made for Evolution completely contradicting the historical Genesis narrative.

>The scientist herself saying that the claim was
>unsubstantiated isn’t a “logical, fact filled, rigorous
>case”? Delusional.

1) You’re claiming she’s refuting the notion they are cells.
2) She’s claiming she does not know if they are nucleated. She is answering a different question than you are claiming in your response to me.

>rejection of your young Earth creationism doesn’t make one
>an atheist either - but nice red herring

I know a Christian who is an old earth Genesis creationist who believes that each day was billions of years, which is why the universe looks old, yet that the Genesis narrative holds exactly. You are pushing the Evolution narrative which contradicts Genesis, and gives comfort to the world that Gospel writer Luke in Luke 3:38 is lying when he says Adam was of God. Also makes Paul a liar in Romans 5:14. All mentions of Adam and Noah in the New Testament become preposterous in your “Evolution is true, Genesis is lie” worldview which is just about as “vain and profane” as things get.

“But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”
2 Timothy 2:16

You give comfort to the world AGAINST the testimony of God.

“know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?”
James 4:4

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.”
1 John 2:15

Do I impugn your salvation? No. I don’t “know you from Adam.” Your worldview is sin though. Jesus himself said, in John 10:35 that “scripture cannot be broken” which means there ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN SCRIPTURE.

You are mistaken, not the Bible. You’re believing your eyes and mind, and not the Bible.

“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
Proverbs 3:5

You cut and pasted a LONG passage without a citation that this was a cut and paste, as if it were your own work.

When I cut and pasted something it was below the LINK and clearly the words of the person I was citing.

I am a Christian, your accusation that I am lying about this show your basic precept, that nobody who disagrees with you is really a believer. Do you also question if the Pope is only saying he is a Christian to gain credibility to advance doctrines that contradict the plain uncomplicated reading of the Bible?

Your worldview is sin and lies, because as with all creationists you have to misrepresent science out of necessity.

You are mistaken for thinking that the subject is divided between “trusting the Bible” and trusting “some atheist evolutionist”. That is delusional.

How many insults have I laid against you personally Mr. Ten your old? Please count and cite them.

But all that is a distraction from the MAIN point.

You said “blood cells in T-rex bone”. And I have shown you that it was blood cell STRUCTURE in the FOSSIL of a T-rex bone.

But of course if you rely upon creationist sources one wouldn't expect you to know ANYTHING about the actual science, creationist sources lie about science out of necessity.

>You cut and pasted a LONG passage without a citation that
>this was a cut and paste, as if it were your own work.

1) True. That long passage in the 3 step case in post #34 where all the contradictions between Genesis history and the Evolutionary narrative was NOT my work. It is from a book published by Answers In Genesis that I no longer have. I forgot to say that. Bad. I apologize.
2) The fact that I “cut and pasted” that information in the 3 step case in post #34 does not change the fact that you have not responded to it. It is a Red Herring leading away from a lack of response from you, other than quoting that atheist evolutionist, which is no response in that it does not address the claims made in the 3 step case in post #34. You are upset that I cut and pasted, and your righteous contempt that I neglected to credit that book does not conceal, alter, destroy, or change the fact that you have not answered that 3 step case I made in post #34.

>I am a Christian, your accusation that I am lying about
>this show your basic precept, that nobody who disagrees
>with you is really a believer.

I don’t know if you are a Christian. I don’t know you from Adam. I don’t read minds across the internet. All I know is, you pick your own knowledge, and experience, and wisdom over the plain teachings of the Bible. I regret that this unsettles you, but there’s nothing I can do about it. Jesus said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits...” in Matthew 7:16. Your “fruit” is you are a highly trained Biologist, who makes basic spelling mistakes unseemly for someone who has been to college and possibly graduate school and has done massive amounts of reading and writing, who picks the wisdom of atheist evolutionists over Genesis. I don’t know your heart, God does. But I see these your fruits, and I don’t like them.

>Do you also question if the Pope is only saying he is a
>Christian to gain credibility to advance doctrines that
>contradict the plain uncomplicated reading of the Bible?

Pope too, same as you. You and Pope have caved, needlessly so. I recommend that you invest time in the material at Answers In Genesis a.k.a. www.answersingenesis.com. They are Christians, because I recognize their fruit as agreeing with the Bible, which I know is the word of God per Deuteronomy 18:21-22 per the evidence at http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html.

Find places to get your objections answered. If you have to write a book with all of the questions Answers In Genesis refuse to answer, so that they are FORCED to address your objections on their web site, then so be it.

>You are mistaken for thinking that the subject is divided
>between “trusting the Bible” and trusting “some atheist
>evolutionist”. That is delusional.

1) I believe that.
2) Call it what you will.

>Your worldview is sin and lies, because as with all
>creationists you have to misrepresent science out of
>necessity.

To say this with credibility, please dig up a reference to video/audio of a Creationist debating an Evolutionist, where the Evolutionist wins by a mile.

Furthermore, that 3 step case I made with the help of that book from Answers In Genesis in post #34 only requires history, archaeology, basic knowledge of evolution, and a plain reading of Genesis.

Particles to people, goo to you ... I don’t buy it. The simplest single celled organism is wildly more complex than a F-22 Raptor. I will now quote a scientist quoting an unnamed source ...

A high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages
and decoding systems; central memory banks that store and
retrieve impressive amounts of information; precision control systems that regulate the automatic assembly of components; proof-reading and quality control mechanisms that safeguard against errors; assembly systems that use principles of prefabrication and modular construction; and a complete replication system that allows the organism to duplicate itself at bewildering speeds.

The aforementioned text of which was used in “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel. See? You’ve made me a better internet debater.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.