Starship Asterisk*

Hello astroton

Thank you for the link: seen something similar. I do not agree with them on the plasma issue. They fall short unless there is more info to come. They speak of the general plasma that we observe on earth but! not the type of plasma that we may find in neutron stars and quark stars.

Hello Kovil

Thank you for the info, most intresting.

As for Iron on earth there are various origins. possible previous exploding star, our solar system going through an area nebulae, metors from our solar sytem, our earth being a part of an exploding star. There is many theories.

As for the origin of Iron production, within the sun fusion process.

Harry,

I was perusing the APJ back issues and found this one, here is a section,
from a paper about "Challenging Cosmic-Ray Propagation with Antiprotons: Evidence for a "Fresh" Nuclei Component?"
April 1, 2003 issue APJ { I inserted these ?'s or comments}

3. THE LB HYPOTHESIS

The low-density region around the Sun, filled with hot H I gas, is called the Local Bubble (see, e.g., Sfeir et al. 1999). The size of the region is about 200 pc {200 parsecs}, and it is likely that it was produced in a series of SN {supernova} explosions. Most probably its progenitor was an OB star association. Although people discuss different scenarios (see, e.g., Maíz-Apellániz 2001; Berghöfer & Breitschwerdt 2002), the Local Bubble (LB) age and the number of SN progenitors appear to be similar, 10 Myr {10 million years} and 1020 SNs, respectively. Most probably they exploded as core-collapse SNs II or thermonuclear SNs Ib/c with a mass of pre-SN stars between several and 10 M {10 solar masses}, with the last SN explosion occurring approximately 12 Myr ago, or three SNs occurring within the last 5 Myr.

There is also some evidence of an SN explosion nearby. An excess of 60Fe measured in a deep ocean core sample of ferromanganese crust suggests the deposition of SN-produced iron on Earth (Knie et al. 1999). The enhanced concentrations were found in two of three layers corresponding to a time span of less than 2.8 Myr and 3.7-5.9 Myr, respectively. The study suggests an SN explosion about 5 Myr ago at 30 pc distance. Another study reports an enhancement in the CR {cosmic ray} intensity dated about 40 kyr {40 thousand years ago} ago (Sonett, Morfill, & Jokipii 1987), which is interpreted as the passage across the solar system of the shock wave from an SN exploding about 0.1 Myr ago. Taking into account possible errors of all these estimates, they point to a nearby SN explosion some 1 Myr ago (see also discussion in Benítez, Maíz-Apellániz, & Canelles 2002).

{eta Carinae has had company recently ! , tho not as massive as eta is}

It could also be that fresh LB contributions from continuous acceleration in the form of shock waves (Bykov & Fleishman 1992) and/or energetic particles coming directly from SN remnants still influence the spectra and abundances of local CRs. The elemental abundances of the low-energy nonthermal component in a superbubble can differ strongly from the standard cosmic abundances (Bykov 2001) because of ejection of matter enriched with heavy elements from SNs and stellar winds of massive stars (Wolf-Rayet, OB stars). The continuous acceleration is connected with the lifetime of a shock wave in the LB. A reasonable estimate is given by the sound crossing time, approximately 2 Myr, for a distance of 200 pc in a 106 K plasma (Berghöfer & Breitschwerdt 2002). On the other hand, the particle crossing time can be estimated as t x2/D 1 Myr for a typical value of the diffusion coefficient in the ISM D 1028 cm s-2 and x 200 pc. Therefore, accelerated particles are expected to be present in this region.

========

SN Fe60 pennies from heaven keep falling on my head . . .

I had no idea the local bubble was so recently active, or that evidence for suggesting so had been discovered, I mean. With all the brown dwarf stars around nearby, and the abundance of heavy elements on earth, I figured we must be close to a local production area or the galactic winds have blown it to here, and I was wondering which was the case and was leaning in the local production direction, (as Ockam's Razor would say that is the simpler answer, as Qev? pointed out)

We are on the cusp of a new begining in data. APJ is currently in a shift over phase to using AASTeX v5.2 for submitted papers, and their online publishing is at an important gearing up moment. 268 astronomical data gathering sites are currently being linked up in a data base for referencing by paper writers for simplifying data retrieval by readers and researchers. What an age !!

Kovil

Astroton,

I haven't seen nor heard of this film until today. I will definately check into seeing it, my dial up is too slow to play video, so I'll just half to suffer and get the two DVD set !
(think of it as a charitable donation !)
Thanks for turning us on to this !!!

Dobson has 10 reasons why BBT is dead, all of which are deal killers.
He rattled them all off one evening, but it strains me to remember them correctly enough.
1. You can't get everything out of nothing.
2. If you could it would all be in a black hole immediately.
3. then he goes into particle exclusionary theory and it went over my head fast. then and a series of problems with poor solutions that only lead to more problems. A long list.

BBT simply has 75 years of inertia behind it and Institutions don't like to have to tell their donator's that they were spending their money on an incorrect theory.
As it makes them look dumb. It's a denial thing.
So they got caught up in the 'patch fix thing' and got in too deep to get out for the last 30 years.

Qev, the revolution is coming !
Donations for data gathering equipment are the best bang for the buck.

Hello All,

Further to my first post on this. Has anyone seen this movie. Kovil & Harry, this movie should be of ineterst to you. Made By Dobson, Randall Meyers

The link:

http://www.universe-film.com/?p=episode2

Prove it? Mmm, no, that's kinda the catch with science. You can never prove a theory true, you can only refine it with better data. Absolute proofs are the realm of pure math.

No competing theory accounts for the information we've gathered as well as the inflationary Big Bang model. This of course doesn't mean that it's an accurate model... just the best we have so far. Things like supernova luminosities, cosmological redshifts, the smoothness (and subtle lumpiness) of the cosmic microwave background, the existance of the cosmic microwave background itself (which was predicted by Big Bang theory), and the abundances of the primordial elements all appear to support this theory.

There are still problems, of course. How did the whole thing start? Why is there almost no anti-matter in the universe? We're still learning.

Hello all

I do not take things emotionally.

One way or another the actual truth is what we are after.

Can so one prove to me that the universe is expanding. I do not want to hear, hear say.

I know where our local group of galaxies are moving to and i know where they are moving to as a unit and so on.

Harry,

Arp, I believe, was involved in making of Cosmological Quest along with Randall Meyers, John Dobson and others. I never knew about this until Kovil mentioned John Dobson. The movie looks at alternative ways to explain the universe than big bang.

If anyone knows about this movie, is it available on DVD? Harry have you watched it? If yes, where did u get it?

harry wrote:I will be a Happy man one day when someone comes out and proves the universe is not expanding. But! how can you do that if its endless.

I'm willing to bet you'll be disappointed.

When we talk of expansion we also include the Big Bang.

There is no way the Universe is expanding. Its internal parts maybe in some areas as part of the recycling process.

I don't see any reason why it couldn't expand. All the evidence we see seems to indicate that it's doing just that. It's an odd sort of expansion, not one we're familiar with here on Earth; we're living at a much smaller scale, and the same rules don't quite apply. Or rather they do apply, but seem much different.

The super, super cluster of galxies act as units and show no signs of expanding within or their distances apart.

Clusters, and superclusters of galaxies are gravitationally bound. This means the mutual attractive force of their gravity is locally overpowering the tendency for the expanding universe to move them apart. Matter isn't coupled strongly to spacetime. It can 'slide' freely as space expands, if there is some force acting on it, such as gravity.

I have asked the question to many people give me evidence for the expansion. Evidence that does not need a fantasy idea. Evidence that will hold up in court and never be questioned.

I'm honestly not sure what evidence you'd accept, if you won't consider what astronomers and cosmologists have found already...

I will be a Happy man one day when someone comes out and proves the universe is not expanding. But! how can you do that if its endless.

When we talk of expansion we also include the Big Bang.

There is no way the Universe is expanding. Its internal parts maybe in some areas as part of the recycling process.

The super, super cluster of galxies act as units and show no signs of expanding within or their distances apart.

I have asked the question to many people give me evidence for the expansion. Evidence that does not need a fantasy idea. Evidence that will hold up in court and never be questioned.

kovil wrote:In regards to Markarian 205 ; what if the ejected material as Arp postulates; what if that was anti-matter ? Would the fact that it is anti-matter change the way it would be seen in terms of a redshift ? by us ?

Anti-matter behaves exactly the same as normal matter. The only difference is that the particles carry the opposite charge to their normal-matter counterparts. In all other respects (barring some subtle quantum peculiarities dealing with symmetries) it appears as normal matter would. Receding antimatter would emit redshifted light normally.

Also, if the material were antimatter, we would know. The universe as we know it is dominated by normal matter; any large quantities of antimatter would react quite vigorously with normal matter, annihilating into gamma radiation with a very specific signature. It would be unmistakable.

If Arp is correct and these central objects flanked by pairs of objects, are in similar distance propinquity; what would account for the redshift disparities ? Could the flanking objects be the opposite kind of matter, and thus be giving a wildy different redshift as a result of that ?

I'm honestly a little stunned that the obvious answer to Arp's question didn't occur to him. He's discussing a pair of high-redshift quasars flanking a lower-redshift galaxy, if I'm reading this correctly. That's the classic signature of a gravitational lens. It's a single quasar at very high redshift, with a high-mass galaxy interposed between it and us. The gravitational field of the galaxy bends the light of the quasar, causing us to see two images of the distant quasar flanking it on either side. There's no mystery there. Please do correct me if I'm misinterpreting what Arp is saying.

Does anti-matter blue shift when receeding ? I am out of my depth on this one at the moment.

No, the light emitted by an antimatter object would behave exactly like the light emitted from any object; it redshifts normally.

Another idea is ; what if the ejected material is time-shifted in some way; and so that is what is making the redshift so much bigger than the parent galaxy. Redshift is a 'time sense' in a way, relativistically speaking. Perhaps the forces causing the ejection are so extreme, time is bending in a manner of speaking, and that shows up as an exaggerated redshift, in relation to the parent galaxy.

High relativistic velocities will cause us to observe the moving object as if its clocks were running slow; time appears to slow down for the moving object. But unless its velocity is towards or away from us (and not across our line of sight), this won't have any effect on the redshift we see from the object.

Regarding redshift, one thing to bear in mind is that redshift is not caused by distance itself; it is caused by recessional velocity. It's the light version of the Doppler effect you hear when a train passes by you while sounding its horn. We relate redshift to distance through Hubble expansion and other types of observations (eg. supernova luminosities, globular cluster luminosities, cepheid variables, etc...). Two objects at great distance that aren't moving toward or away from each other (albeit improbable in an expanding universe) would show neither redshift nor blueshift.

<<Can galaxies, like atoms and molecules, posses quantized states? >>

Harry,

In regards to Markarian 205 ; what if the ejected material as Arp postulates; what if that was anti-matter ? Would the fact that it is anti-matter change the way it would be seen in terms of a redshift ? by us ?

If Arp is correct and these central objects flanked by pairs of objects, are in similar distance propinquity; what would account for the redshift disparities ? Could the flanking objects be the opposite kind of matter, and thus be giving a wildy different redshift as a result of that ?

Does anti-matter blue shift when receeding ? I am out of my depth on this one at the moment.

Another idea is ; what if the ejected material is time-shifted in some way; and so that is what is making the redshift so much bigger than the parent galaxy. Redshift is a 'time sense' in a way, relativistically speaking. Perhaps the forces causing the ejection are so extreme, time is bending in a manner of speaking, and that shows up as an exaggerated redshift, in relation to the parent galaxy.

Drawing at straws here !

And if so , how could we devise a test for that ?

That's our homework for this summer !!

Kovil

Re link
http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm

Quantized Galaxy Redshifts


Tifft, William G., and Cocke, W. John; "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts,"


Sky and Telescope, 73:19, 1987.

"The history of science relates many examples where the conventional view ultimately was proved wrong."


Tifft and Cocke begin their article with this sentence. Wisely, they followed with the tale of how vehemently the quantization of the atom was resisted earlier in this century. They were wise because without such a reminder to be open-minded, many astronomers would automatically toss their article in the wastebasket! In fact, when Tifft's first paper on redshift quantization appeared in the Astrophysical Journal, the Editor felt constrained to add a note to the effect that the referees:


"Neither could find obvious errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse publication."


Even today, after much more evidence for redshift quantization has accumulated, scientific resistance to the idea is extreme. We shall now see what all this fuss is about.
Tifft first became suspicious that the redshifts of galaxies might be quantized; that is, take on discrete values; when he found that galaxies in the same clusters possessed redshifts that were related to the shapes of the galaxies. The obvious inference was that the redshifts were at least partly dependent upon the galaxy itself rather than entirely upon the galaxy's speed of recession (or distance) from the earth. Then, he found more suggestions of quantization. The redshifts of pairs of galaxies differed by quantized amounts (see figure). More evidence exists for galactic quantization, but this should give the reader a feeling for the conceptual disaster waiting on the wings of astronomy.


Can galaxies, like atoms and mole cules, posses quantized states? And do the findings of Tifft and Cocke undermine the redshift-distance relationship? The answer might be YES; and then all of astronomy and our entire view of the universe and its history would have to be reformulated.

Hello Kovil

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,you are so right

But!!! its so amazing that most cosmologists lean towards the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe.

I remember Mr. Arp and Maartin Schmidt were having a disagreement in the 1960's, and the conventional wisdom sided with Mr. Schmidt a few years later. I wondered what Mr. Arp has been doing all these years, I had kind of forgotten about him. Sounds like he's on to something. I too suspected that redshift as only meaning distance thru velocity left something to be desired. It is too narrow a view to be correct, as it implies assumptions which are not being talked about or investigated.
Mainly, can anything else cause red-shift.
I never liked the idea that redshift implies distance, because I do not suscribe to the belief that distance alone is good reason for things to be receeding from us.
The idea that distance causes redshift, has validity to me, in the sense of; something happens to the light over distance, that causes a redshift; but we are misinterpreting it as velocity only. What happens over distance to light is not understood by me yet.
It may be that long distance light, loses energy by 'leakage' and the result is an apparent redshift. Thusly everything distant is redshifted and we think that means that everything far away is receeding. The further away, the bigger the redshift. Thusly the Big Bang nicely initially explains that easily, and so we have our foot firmly planted in that washing pail , and can't get it out ! And are in full denial about having a thoroughly wet foot and uneven walk !

here's more interesting place:

above article wrote:Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps.

Rather than hearing my comments on this issue.

Please read link
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm


Quote "But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values.
Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified"

read the rest.

Is Arp wrong or is there another expalation.