Posted on 06/01/2007 8:22:19 PM PDT by Moonman62
Using a suite of four telescopes, astronomers have captured an image of Altair, one of the closest stars to our own and a fixture in the summer sky.
While astronomers have recently imaged a few of the enormous, dying, red-giant stars, this is the first time anyone has seen the surface of a relatively tiny hydrogen-burning star like our own sun.
"The galaxy is shaped by the effects of relatively rare but powerful hot, rapidly rotating stars," says John Monnier of the University of Michigan, the lead author on the study that will appear on Science Express on May 31, 2007. "These stars have more in common with Altair than our own sun and understanding Altair will allow us to better understand how these influential stars scattered throughout the galaxy operate."
Monnier was part of an international team of astronomers that captured the image using four of the six telescopes at a facility on Mt. Wilson, Calif., operated by the Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) at Georgia State University in Atlanta with partial support from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The CHARA telescopes were able to make the breakthrough observation because they were outfitted with a novel system to clean up some of the distortions from Earth's atmosphere, a technology called the Michigan Infrared Combiner, developed with NSF support at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Recent advances in fiber optic telecommunication technology made this new combiner possible.
"For looking at optical or infrared wavelengths of light, the CHARA telescope array has the world's longest spacing between telescopes and therefore the greatest ability to zoom in on the stars," adds Hal McAlister, CHARA director and a professor of astronomy at Georgia State.
Until now, astronomers could gather tremendous amounts of data from stars, but could not capture images of what the stars looked like. Even to the largest telescopes, stars looked like the points of light we all see when we peer up into the night sky.
Using the telescopes as an interferometer--a multi-telescope system that combines information from small, distantly spaced telescopes to create a picture as if taken from one large telescope--the researchers captured infrared lightwaves as if from a giant telescope 265 meters by 195 meters in dimension (100 times the size of the mirror on NASA's Hubble telescope and roughly 25 times the resolution).
"Without the interferometer, the ability to obtain such detailed images would not be possible with today's existing telescopes--or even the planned 30-meter telescopes," says Julian Christou, one of the NSF officers overseeing the research. "The critical component of the CHARA system is the beam combiner which allows the light from the individual small telescopes to be mixed together, which up to now had only been successfully used with radio telescopes such as the Very Large Array near Socorro, N.M."
The discovery is helping to answer questions about stars while raising others, particularly when researchers compare long-standing models to the new observations.
For example, Altair is a speedily spinning "rapid rotator", just like Vega, one of Altair's partners (with the slow-spinning supergiant Deneb) in the Summer Triangle in the night sky.
Altair spins so quickly, about 300 kilometers per second at its equator, that it's shape is distorted: the star is a full 22 percent wider than it is tall. The new telescope measurements confirmed the oblong shape, yet showed slightly different surface temperature patterns than what models predicted.
Altair is one of the closest stars in our neighborhood, only about 15 light years away, and the researchers hope to image Vega as well as more distant stars in the future.
"Imaging stars is just the start.We are going to next apply this technology to imaging extrasolar planets around nearby stars," said Ming Zhao, an astronomy graduate student at Michigan who carried out the detailed stellar modeling.
NSF supported this research through awards 0606958 and 0352723, along with a number of awards totaling nearly $6.5 million to help construct CHARA.
For additional information, see the press releases at the University of Michigan (http://www.umich.edu/news/) and Georgia State University (http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwexa/news/).
Additional graphics are available at: http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/~monnier/Local/altair2007.html
-NSF-
And what data are you using to compare the results found while using the spectrophotometer? Surely you are speculating that between here and the Sun there are no phenomena that could skew your results or perhaps you are speculating that there are no other gases or chemicals or ??? God only knows what that closely resembles the results junk-scientist claim to be fact isn't this correct?
Forgive me but I'm tired of egg-heads stating as fact "theories." Theories are nothing more than glorified hunches and until actual evidence (like a physical sample of the material burning on the Sun collected off the Sun) that's all this "hunch" will be.
I'd appreciate it if people would make their statements in an honest manner instead of trying to brainwash the general populace into supporting causes that are full of hot air.
LOL - Good one!
That looks bad. We’re close enough now, no need to send a colony ship.
But no one's actually grabbed a handful of blue from the sky and studied it.
The original post in this thread is fascinating but the assertions of fact ruin what it is saying.
Let me guess... your disdain for science is a function of being a creationist.
As for your comment about creationism all I have to say is there is a whole lot more evidence (Nasty little word - evidence - I know but...) to support creationism than there is to support say... what the Sun burns.
And no.... I'm not going to argue with you about that which is beyond you ability to comprehend. You can take that up with your pastor/priest/sinsay??? Whatever.
One more thing. Science is the art of asking legitimate questions about observable, testable phenomena. Why do you followers of junk-science fear legitimate questions about your conclusions? Better yet what do you think gives you the right to look down at those who are obviously superior to you?
Just asking!
OK, it’s more of a trident. But it is VERY DISTURBING!!!
I would have added willful ignorance to disdain for science, but I do believe you’re right.
An expedition to the sun was mounted in the late nineteenth century by one Joseph Norman Lockyer. The samples he readily provided gave ample evidence to other researchers about the contituents of solar material.
He described discovering a new substance that was unlike any other. Eventually, it came to be called Helium.
We now recognize that Helium is not what the sun burns. Rather, it is the ash of what the sun burns, and we owe its discovery to Lockyer.
LOL... And I'm sure you can tell us where the spacecraft he used is located is that right?
According to his journals, he was struck by a scientific realization which, oddly enough, came from a fat lady in a circus sideshow, "... steel does not burn!"
With this realization, and a hefty grant from some philanthropic backers, he constructed his spaceship. Sadly, while it did not burn, after his return it sat around for dozens of years rusting, and was eventually taken for scrap in the early part of the twentieth century.
They knew the expedition would be fraught with peril, and that heat would be an extreme problem. Fortuitously, they took along a large quantity of dry ice, and were able to stay relatively comfortable.
The final approach was of course the most dangerous, so they simply slowed their descent at a rate designed to take timing into consideration, and they settled gently to the surface after nightfall.
I don’t understand why you respond to any of us. After all, your belief that we exist is JUNK SCIENCE.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
Hmmmmmm. Thanks for making my case. You all have fun now ya hear.
Now, now, just cooperate! I gave him a sample of me.
Rudy’s a liberal putz. Anything else you wish to know?
The flute again?
By the way, while Michael Jackson popularized “Moon-Walking”, Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer managed to inspire for a short time a dance craze called “Hotfooting”, ascribed to the humorous attempts he made to demonstrate his means of locomotion while on the solar surface.
It was never heard of after the Charleston came along.
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.