Giant star caught swallowing three planets

A giant star has been caught in the act of swallowing three planets, one after the other, with each "meal" accompanied by a massive eruption.

"It has been suggested in the past that stars might engulf planets in this way, but we believe we have actually caught this action for the first time," says Alon Retter of the University of Sydney, Australia.

The star, known as V838 Monocerotis, is about 20,000 light years from Earth. In January 2002, it temporarily became the brightest star in the Milky Way, 600,000 times more luminous than the Sun. At the time, astronomers struggled to explain the spectacular explosion.

Retter and colleague Ariel Marom believe their new analysis of light emissions from the star indicates that it was a red giant that expanded and successively swallowed three relatively massive planets in quick succession. The time between the first and the last engulfment was only about two months.

"In principle, that explanation seems OK," says John Lattanzio, director of the Centre for Stellar and Planetary Astrophysics at Monash University. But he says the star was too hot to have been a red giant. "It was probably one that was on its way there - that could fit the parameters."

Existing models of what will happen when our Sun expands to become a red giant, in about one billion years, suggest that Venus and Mercury will both be engulfed. The likely fate of the Earth is unclear. "Our work suggests that once one planet is engulfed, there is an eruption, and then further expansion - so it might suggest that Earth will indeed be swallowed. But this will need to be checked carefully with the models," Retter says.

The light analysed from V838 Monocerotis shows that after a short but gradual decline in luminosity following January's outburst, the star suddenly increased in brightness again in early February. The phenomenon was repeated a third time in March.

Retter and Marom found that each of the three maximum peaks in brightness were followed by secondary, weaker peaks. This repeating pattern suggests each event had the same cause, says Retter. The data also reveals the presence of large amounts of lithium and barium, which astronomers had proposed might indicate that a star had swallowed a planet.

Initially it was suggested that the first explosion was some kind of nova outburst, but this was hard to match to the observations. Other researchers suggested that two stars had collided.

"But again, this cannot explain the complicated light curve," Retter says "Our explanation, that the star swallowed three planets, fits all the observational features of the star."

Retter and Marom describe their analysis in a letter accepted by the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

We obviously see things considerably differently.
You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

It seems to be your view that this site is without value when it comes to informing or educating the next generations about Constitutional conservatism. I can now assume that “sullying” or adult humor serves the purpose of the site. After all, we can’t afford to do anything “for the children”. I tend to see everything as a potential for training the young coming along because otherwise the only place they will obtain training is from the willing liberals and communists. It is how we have lost the "minds" of a generation or so thus far so that we need others (i.e. Coulter) to pull a few of them out.

It is a shame to give reasons to the eager liberals who judge sites for filtering groups to keep children out of this one. There are discussions of history , politics, science, economics and geography here that are stunning in their import and impact. Even this thread has more valuable input (with references to other sites) from Freepers than the article itself contained.

How sad that because it would be "dour" without “sullying” references the filterers can get their wish fulfilled to keep this out of the sight of some of the most promising youngsters in our nation whose parents may not have the background in their areas of interest that those here could provide.

You are correct. The moderator did not find the tasteless remark offensive. I had no idea that you and yours would conceive of my objection as tantamount to an Admin rebuke since I did not. It is an interesting concept, but it wasn’t my purpose or intent.

Apparently what you object to most is the verbiage. It somehow afflicts you. Words of three syllables or less can be hard for some to people to produce depending on what one’s training in languages has been but that may not be apparent to a crowd.

I apologize for the objectionable verbalization. It is interesting to me that you are free to stamp my motive as “supercilious vainglory” according to your (mis)perception. So far as I am concerned you have here come just as close to usurping “the mantle” of authority as I must have in your estimation. Your warning to “Please do not do so again.” indicates to me that you must be the authority/Moderator here.

Since I cannot “Bulwer-Lytton” with any of them you are seven up on me. And since you have named yourself a King, I bow (out) to you, Admin/King Prout.

"Its ramifications for fundamentalist Creationists (who insist that the Earth and Man are the center and raison d'etre of all Creation) should strain their simplistic, geocentric, homocentric, and egocentric views of the universe..." (TXnMA, #36)

Was that really necessary? (Zack Nguyen, #66)

------------
I believe so, Zack, and this subject is really important to me -- just keep reading to learn "where I'm coming from".
------------

I guess what you are saying is that the universe is so vast that we aren't as significant as many think we are. (Stingray51, #57)

------------
That's exactly what I'm saying -- but hear me out, please...
------------

I reach the opposite conclusion, i.e., that the entire vastness of the universe is the stage which exists for the purpose of providing a physical location for the story of humanity to play out, and that its very vastness is indicative of how important the human struggle is. Which makes sense from a Christian perspective (to me at least) because if God thought mankind was important enough to send His Son to die for, it would not be surprising if He wanted to provide a mind-bogglingly vast universe as background for something so significant. (Stingray51, #57)

------------
I really appreciate your thoughtful and kind response; it states the "homocentric" position as well (and as nicely) as I have ever seen it stated. And...I once believed just as you do...

Before we proceed further, though, I think you should know the following about me (posted on a thread entitled, "Life's Complexity Diminishes Darwinian Potency") earlier this week:
------------

"FWIW, and before you label me in your mind as a "heathen", know this: I am a born-again believer in Christ Jesus, and accept the bare outline of creation in Genesis as fundamental truth. (The Bible, is, after all, a spiritual guide -- not a science text.)"

However, as a scientist (physical chemist), I consider it my calling in life to "read" the "other book" God left as a record for us -- all his mighty works -- so that I might seek to understand the majesty of all that He has made.

------------
Mankind are insignificant occupants of a second-rate planet, orbiting a third-rate sun, out in an empty spot between arms on the fringes of a modest galaxy -- one among billions of galaxies in Gods wondrous Creation. And that is precisely why I rejoice in the wondrous miracle of God's great love that sent His Only Son here to die for us!!

If Mankind were the most important thing in God's Creation -- where would the miracle be? But, no...we are the least significant of His creation -- yet he sent His Son to save us!!! Talk about "Amazing Grace"!!!!

Now, I hope you can see why each new revelation of the majesty of His creation -- as revealed in the APOD images, for example -- fills me with ever-growing awe for the wonder of His love... And, perhaps, you can understand why I now feel that my old position (that I and my world were the center of all) was the height of hubris and arrogance...
------------

(Was it because we were significant -- or was it because we sinned?)

Why would you and others of your ilk post things so obtuse on a thread which, because of it's scientific interests, should be seen by homeschoolers and other young people who can be directed to the thread by email or instant messaging? Why would you want to embarrass, besmirch or defame the reputation of the site in the eyes of their parents and cause conservative views which this site is supposed to evidence to be looked at with the disdain reserved for the Clintonian types? Instead of bringing honor and respect to the site you all are intent on vesting it with a reputation suitable for a dung hill and making our host and those who appreciate the site a laughing stock among the intelligent or the beckoning byword for the porn inclined. Please stop wreaking as much destruction as any DU disrupter and bringing as much shame to the site as Clinton has to this Nation. Your marvelous quick wit and obvious capability with humor would be so refreshing, captivating and joy producing to so many if it reflected wisdom rather than rot. It would bring you great respect rather than disrepute.

Gee aren't we a prude. Lighten up and take the corn cob out.

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.