Is Io the Nearest Supernova?

[big-egg]

Io is the nearest supernova!?

It is shown that space bodies expand and then collapse on their sources in supernova like explosions [1]. Therefore the nearest supernova is Io. The hot volcanic nature of Io [2] indicates near collapse at cosmic time scales. We can only hope that our much smaller time scales to end well before the explosion. Similar explosion of a planet between Mars and Jupiter has created asteroid belt [1].

I wonder what will be the impact on the Earth if 10% of the mass of Io turns into energy according to E=mc2?


1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.
2. http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/892.html

 

[chroot]

Rest assured that Io is a moon of Jupiter, and will never be a supernova. Supernovae result when very massive stars run out of fuel and suffer devastating core collapse. Io is just a tiny fragment of rock, and has nothing whatsoever to do with supernovae.

I should also mention that Savov is a total crackpot, and you should not believe everything that you read.

- Warren

 

[Chronos]

Rest assured that Io is a moon of Jupiter, and will never be a supernova. Supernovae result when very massive stars run out of fuel and suffer devastating core collapse. Io is just a tiny fragment of rock, and has nothing whatsoever to do with supernovae.

I should also mention that Savov is a total crackpot, and you should not believe everything that you read.

- Warren

savov is not a total crackpot [you flatter him]. he is just a phony pretending to be a physicist. metaphysical nonsense should be taken with a 'chrystal' of salt.

 

[russ_watters]

savov is not a total crackpot [you flatter him]. he is just a phony pretending to be a physicist. metaphysical nonsense should be taken with a 'chrystal' of salt.

So he's a fraud masquerading as a crackpot? Interesting, but by that you assume that to be a crackpot one needs to be a real physicist, just with crazy ideas. Hm...gotta think about that one.

 

[Nereid]

It is shown that space bodies expand and then collapse on their sources in supernova like explosions [1]. Therefore the nearest supernova is Io. The hot volcanic nature of Io [2] indicates near collapse at cosmic time scales. We can only hope that our much smaller time scales to end well before the explosion. Similar explosion of a planet between Mars and Jupiter has created asteroid belt [1].

I wonder what will be the impact on the Earth if 10% of the mass of Io turns into energy according to E=mc2?


1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.
2. http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/892.html

If a supernova occurred between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, we certainly wouldn't be here to discuss it!

Homo sap. 1, Savov 0.

 

[The Bob]

Hey People

I am new to these forums but I would like to put my two penny worth in.

I have just finished my GCSEs and so would like to put a lower view on things.

If Io was, indeed, to become a supernova then it would have to be about 10 times the size of our Sun (or 13,900,000,000 metres in diameter). It would then have to produce its own heat from the nuclear fission that takes place in it. It would have to produce light.

Now it does do both in very, very small amounts but if it were to produce 10 times the amount of light we would all have been blinded and if it were 10 times the size of our Sun then it would produce 10 times the heat from it, which would mean about 60,000°C of heat would be radiating into space. Io is closer to use than the Sun and so our 'Life-Zone' would not be mantained. It would be like living on Mercury (not as hot as Venus (lol )).

Io would then have to contract and use helium as a source of energy and then inplode as a result. We would not exist before or after if Io is a supernova, reasons above.

Hope this ends the topic here and does not get carried away with advance science when simple science is all that is needed.

Hope I learn to be as intelligent as all of you.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[chroot]

No offense The Bob, but your physics needs to be torn apart a bit.

1) Stars liberate energy via nuclear fusion, not fission.

2) Io does not undergo any kind of nuclear reactions except the natural decay of primordial radioisotopes that were present in the solar nebula -- the same activity that occurs in the Earth. Io does not produce any light, except a bit from escaping magma. Overall, Io does not liberate energy. Most of its energy is gained by tidal interactions with Jupiter.

3) A star that is 10 times more massive than another does not produce 10 times the light or energy output -- it produces many, many, many times more light and energy. Surface area, of course, increases with the square of radius, and power output is linearly dependent on surface area.

4) I don't know where you got this 60,000 C figure.

5) Io is more than four times further from us than is the Sun.

- Warren

 

[The Bob]

Thanks

No offense The Bob, but your physics needs to be torn apart a bit.

None taken. I need help.

1) Stars liberate energy via nuclear fusion, not fission.

Sorry got the wrong word. :tongue2:

2) Io does not undergo any kind of nuclear reactions except the natural decay of primordial radioisotopes that were present in the solar nebula -- the same activity that occurs in the Earth. Io does not produce any light, except a bit from escaping magma. Overall, Io does not liberate energy. Most of its energy is gained by tidal interactions with Jupiter.

Yer. That is what I was trying to say. That Io could not be a supernova because it does not produce, even close to enough, light or heat to be a star before exploding.

3) A star that is 10 times more massive than another does not produce 10 times the light or energy output -- it produces many, many, many times more light and energy. Surface area, of course, increases with the square of radius, and power output is linearly dependent on surface area.

Right. Correction noted. Cheers, but my point of more heat and light produced is correct just not accurate. So it is 100 times more (as it is the square), right?

4) I don't know where you got this 60,000 C figure.

This was from a web site. I took the surface temperature of the Sun and multiplied it by 10. Of course not only does the surface area have nothing to do with the heat and light produced but also it is 100 times.

5) Io is more than four times further from us than is the Sun.

I stand corrected but my point, originally, is still valid. Io is not a supernova for the reasons in my original text (plus the corrections)

Thanks for the corrections. I can now go on and learn more and learn not to just assume but to prove.

Hope I can be as intelligent as all of you one day.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[Locrian]

If a supernova occurred between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, we certainly wouldn't be here to discuss it!

Homo sap. 1, Savov 0.

That cracked me up

 

[Nereid]

Glad you liked it Locrian, and (a belated) welcome to Physics Forums!

Credit where it's due; I got the idea from SelfAdjoint (I've learned a lot besides, from his posts and suggestions).

 

[Njorl]

Do you have empirical evidence that supernovae do not produce disembodied entities that suffer the delusion that they are people communicating via an internet physics board?

What? Have you never heard of Occam's curling iron?

Njorl

 

[Nereid]

In the ~13.7 bn years that I've been around, I've known billions of supernovae; I can honestly say not a single one of them has produced a disembodied entity of any kind. OTOH, there are indeed many mischievous things (let's just leave it at that) which (who?) delight in physics fora pranks, of many kinds.

But my buddy, Hydra, whose hair many of the odd matter-creature species homo sap. mistake for 'heads', starting with that hyper-testosterone charged Hercules, has had a lot of trouble with the Ockham curling iron, so ve (you understand that the earthly obsession with just two sexes is quaint, but also irritating) sent it back with a tart note about 'marketing cra*'

Now the 'married' ones, them you have to watch!