Star Formation

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:16 am

Hello All

Just read this link:

Paper presented at the 199th Annual AAS meeting
Willard Inter-Continental Hotel, Washington, D.C, 12:00 noon, January 7, 2002.
Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete
O. Manuel, Nuclear Chemistry, U. Missouri-Rolla

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410569.pdf

I do not think that this is a crank pot link.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:53 am

Hello All

If this does not start any stars than I'm a mokeys uncle.

See the link

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/

This black hole ejecting matter is 4.8 Gyrs away. Its super massive

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:22 am

Hello All

http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/neutrons.html

Under the effect of the gravitational collapse of a core heavier than 1.4 solar masses, the matter is forced into a degenerate state : electrons are unable to remain in their orbits around the nuclei (they would have to traver faster than light in order to obey the Pauli exclusion principle) and they are forced to penetrate the atomic nuclei. So they fuse with protons, and form neutrons.

Pauli's principle, that we've seen before, forbids two neutrons having the same state to stay in the same place . This principle creates a degeneracy pressure fighting against gravity, and so allows the remnant of the star to find an equilibrium state.

Does this mean that the final destination is Neutron Core for all compacted degenerate matter. Is this what makes up the matter of the Black Holes with density 10^17.

Or is it possible for further compaction with quark particles.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:23 am

Hello All

I was asked by email to post more links on stars

Here are some,,,,,,,,,,I hope they are not a repeat.

Stars are not regular, they have their own stage or phase in their evolution. Some stars may go through several generations of starformation and supernova before going into a state of "compact core" that may look as if its dying, but in reality it will go through space as a gravity sink and may rejuvinate before it gets sucked into a stella black hole or one larger near the centre.

Here is a link that may help you, and if you need more info just ring.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...tar_types.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/stars/startypes/

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=523

http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s11.htm

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...tartypes.shtml

There are alot of stars such as Neutron stars 10km (sun mass) that we are unable to see because they are toooooooo far away, but can see their influence to their surroundings.

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:27 pm

Hello All

I just read this link

Astronomers discover stars with carbon atmospheres

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24089

We've found stars with no detectable traces of helium and hydrogen in their atmospheres," said University of Arizona Steward Observatory astronomer Patrick Dufour. "We might actually be observing directly a bare stellar core. We possibly have a window on what used to be the star's nuclear furnace and are seeing the ashes of the nuclear reaction that once took place."

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:12 pm

Here's the preprint on the arXiv server: Rare White dwarf stars with carbon atmospheres

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:42 am

Hello Neried

Thank you for the post.

Read that also.

kovil · Post by **kovil** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:54 am

Where do stars come from?

This is a question that has been on the edge of my mind for a while, and had not quite formed itself into a question yet.

The standard model says that the ISM dust aggregates by gravity into a proto disk and that condenses to form the star and the planets, and our solar system is 4-5 Gy old.

Electric Theory says that a star could be very much older than 5 Gy, and that the galactic electric currents cause the star to glow by their current flow. In this case, where does the star come from? Or where did the star's material come from?

As it is becoming very obvious that stars do not have a nuclear furnace in their core, and the electric theory is correct; that leaves the question of where does the star come from, and why?

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:40 pm

Hello Kovil

I will forward an email that is going to print soon.

As for our sun where did the sun evolved from?

The stage before was a star that went supernova leaving behind a Neutron core.That process is complicated.

Where did the matter come from to form any star?

Its always been here in one form or another.

One of the main processes in nature and the universe is the process of recycling.

As per the Big Bang matter came out of a so called singularity in pin spots distributed throught the universe at the same time. The probabilty of this happening at the same time is impossible.

But! the point that matter CAN be pumped out of a so called singularity gives us the idea that compact cores such as star inner cores, neutron stars and so on and the so called black hole are able to pump matter that it collects over time back into space via jets. We know that these jets can go for millions of years and in active galaxies such as M87 can go for many thousands of yrs.

I must note that the main stream cosmologists do not think that matter is ejected from the inner core of a BH but from the infalling matter. This is where I disagree. But! if you read papers you will find that they admit that they are confused and do not know.

If we study the evolution of galaxies we can notice the evolution from elliptical to spiral to elliptical and the cycle keeps on going for infinity unless there is a collision with other galaxies and it becomes even more complicated when we have cluster of galaxies colliding.
One more thing the stage of evolution and form of a galaxy is related to the size and activity of the neucleon.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:47 pm

kovil wrote:Where do stars come from?

This is a question that has been on the edge of my mind for a while, and had not quite formed itself into a question yet.

The standard model says that the ISM dust aggregates by gravity into a proto disk and that condenses to form the star and the planets, and our solar system is 4-5 Gy old.

Dust is minor component of both the ISM and of stars; what 'aggregates by gravity' is predominantly (H and He) gas.

Electric Theory says that a star could be very much older than 5 Gy, and that the galactic electric currents cause the star to glow by their current flow. In this case, where does the star come from? Or where did the star's material come from?

I'm unfamiliar with this 'Electric Theory'; can you provide references to the key papers (published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) which a) describe the key aspects of this 'Theory', b) present models of star formation in which this 'Theory' is a key player, and c) account for the observed 'glow' of stars in terms of 'galactic electric currents'?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but I suspect that you are continuing to use the Café to promote ideas that are, at best, fringe science, and (at worst) anti-science.

As it is becoming very obvious that stars do not have a nuclear furnace in their core, and the electric theory is correct; that leaves the question of where does the star come from, and why?

Please provide references to papers (published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) to support your 'very obvious' assertion about nuclear furnaces in stars' cores, in regard to main-sequence stars*.

Ditto re your assertion that 'the electric theory is correct'.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but I suspect that you are continuing to use the Café to promote ideas that are, at best, fringe science, and (at worst) anti-science.

If you cannot provide such support, please do not post any such assertions, concerning 'electric theory', in future, here in the Café.

*Note that 'shell-burning' stars, such as red giants, and collapsed stars, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars, indeed 'do not have a nuclear furnace in their core'; this is standard, mainstream astrophysics.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:02 pm

If electric theory cannot explain something as relavent as the formation of a star, then perhaps the error lies in the electric theory and not other formation theories.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:42 am

This is getting interesting, , , 8)

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:46 am

Hello All

The electric universe and plasma cosmology has interesting theories.

They are worth researching from a science point of view.

The formation of a star is not as simple as it looks.

We have several theories and until further research is completed we are all left in the dark.

Just go with the flow.

Neried said

Dust is minor component of both the ISM and of stars; what 'aggregates by gravity' is predominantly (H and He) gas.

This is not actually correct.

Jets eject huge amounts of matter which aggregates via electromagnetic forces and yes also by gravity.

Sometimes stars explode with very little H or He leaving behind other matter. So I do not think dust is a minor component.

Lets put it another way.

If the Big Bang is correct than our origin is from degenerate matter and over billions of years we do have H and He been the main players but other matter has been accumulating and making dust more dusty.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:55 pm

harry wrote:Hello All

(SNIP)

We have several theories and until further research is completed we are all left in the dark.

Just go with the flow.

Very well stated! Unfortunately, as the formation appears to take place in the stellar nursery's of places like the Eagle's Nest
where the stellar formation is happening but is not visible to us "in the dark". Until enough dust has blown away, or enough heat is being generated (infrared), we don't know it is even occuring.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:40 pm

harry wrote:Hello All

The electric universe and plasma cosmology has interesting theories.

I'm curious harry; would you mind answering a simple question here?

It's true that the word 'theory', as used in everyday speech, can be synonymous with 'hunch', or 'guess', or 'speculation'. However, in science, the word 'theory' has a much different meaning, which we have discussed, many times, in many threads.

It seems to me that you intend the word (theory) to have its second (as used in science) meaning, but your sentence makes sense only with the first meaning*.

Is this a typo? Or can you point to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals which detail these (so-called) theories?

They are worth researching from a science point of view.

The formation of a star is not as simple as it looks.

We have several theories and until further research is completed we are all left in the dark.

Just go with the flow.

Neried said

Dust is minor component of both the ISM and of stars; what 'aggregates by gravity' is predominantly (H and He) gas.
This is not actually correct.

Jets eject huge amounts of matter which aggregates via electromagnetic forces and yes also by gravity.

Sometimes stars explode with very little H or He leaving behind other matter. So I do not think dust is a minor component.

Hmm ... have you come across material which presents the clouds from which stars form being composed of dust as more than a minor component?

That the dust may play critical roles in the fine details of star formation is certainly a reasonable summary of a century or more of astronomical research. However, I've not seen reports of any observations which concluded that the dust in these clouds comprised even 10% of their mass.

Of course some supernovae are the explosion of stars which, when they explode, have very little H or He; however, this 'metal rich' (astronomers call all elements, other than H and He, 'metals') gas gets thoroughly mixed with far larger masses of H and He dominated inter-stellar matter before it gets recycled into new stars.

Also, I don't get the jet reference - would you mind clarifying please?

Lets put it another way.

If the Big Bang is correct than our origin is from degenerate matter and over billions of years we do have H and He been the main players but other matter has been accumulating and making dust more dusty.

IIRC (if I recall correctly), I pointed out that this 'degenerate matter' origin of matter, in modern cosmological models, is incorrect - it is your own, personal view (or a big misunderstanding of both BBT and what 'degenerate matter' is).

But the other part is right: stars are converting H and He into metals, and have been doing so for ~13 billion years. The collective result, to date, is that metals comprise some 2% of baryonic matter. Note that dust may contain H, and that the gas component of dense, cold ISM (inter-stellar clouds) may contain metals (as CO, for example, or water).

*Because, as we have discussed, in many threads, at great length, there is no such theory.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:00 pm

Harry should have the final word to explain his terminology but I believe that by stating "Degenerate Matter" he is refering to atoms that have been broken down to their component parts by gravity. Electrons stripped and protons and neutrons not held together in the form of atoms. Essentially matter that has degenerated into its contituent parts without form.
His analogy with the Big Bang is rough but fitting, if my understanding is correct. The Big Bang is supposed to have released all matter into the Universe but because of the Heat involved, this matter was just free flowing electrons and protons (similar to Harry's Proposed Degenerate Matter) (neutrons came later??), but because of the heat, they couldn't combine into the first elemental atom H. So, as the universe cooled, this uncombined material began to form H which coalesced into the first Protostars.
I believe this is what Harry means when he refers to Degenerate matter

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:45 pm

Sabine Hossenfelder and Stefan Scherer have a wonderful physics blog called BackRe (Action) - "Events on the world lines of two theoretical physicists, from the horizon to timelike infinity. A scientifically minded blog with varying amounts of entertainment, distractions, and every day trivialities."

Several of their 2007 "A Pottl a Day" blogs are worth mention in connection with 'degenerate matter' and the early universe.

The Phase Diagram of Nuclear Matter, which talks about states of matter that are far, far beyond the ones we encounter in everyday life, but some of which are relevant to the early universe. Note: no mention of 'degenerate' or 'degeneracy'.

Running Coupling Constants, which is also highly relevant to the (even earlier) universe; again, no mention of the 'd' word.

Asymptotic Freedom and the Coupling Constant of QCD nicely bridges the above two, with a closer look at just one coupling constant.

Finally, The Hadron-Muon Branching Ratio shows nicely how complicated something as seemingly simple as electron-positron annihilation actually is.

These are some of the many inputs used to model the very early universe, when it was very hot and very dense ... before protons (etc) had independent identities, for example.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:36 am

Hello All

Interesting link on jets and starformation

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chand ... 7-139.html

Jets produced by super massive black holes transport enormous amounts of energy far from black holes and enable them to affect matter on scales vastly larger than the size of the black hole. Learning more about jets is a key goal for astrophysical research.

Another unique aspect of the discovery in 3C321 is how relatively short-lived this event is on a cosmic time scale. Features seen in the Very Large Array and Chandra images indicate that the jet began impacting the galaxy about one million years ago, a small fraction of the system's lifetime. This means such an alignment is quite rare in the nearby universe, making 3C321 an important opportunity to study such a phenomenon.

It is possible the event is not all bad news for the galaxy being struck by the jet. The massive influx of energy and radiation from the jet could induce the formation of large numbers of stars and planets after its initial wake of destruction is complete.

Very interesting.

Main stream cosmology assumes that the jet is created by infalling matter.

In my opinion and not that of main stream is mostly matter from the core of the black hole and the jet powered by the plasma properties of the core. What else would produce such a drive and give the jet an electromagnetic properties protecting it from the black hole huge gravity.

Since most do not know one from the other, than one option is as good as the other.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:25 am

Hello All

If you are interested in jets, here are some links that I had in the computer.

{link to non-science website removed}

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/ngc6251.html

The blowtorch jet in the radio galaxy NGC 6251

One important lesson from radio galaxies is that the central engine continues to eject material in nearly the same direction for at least several million years, based on the fact that the tiny parsec-scale jets in the core regions point in the same direction as the very extended radio structure which may stretch several million light-years (and thus took at least that many years to form).

M87's Energetic Jet
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011101.html

3C273: Black Hole Spills a Kaleidoscope of Color
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/3c273/

3C438:
Galaxy Cluster Takes It to the Extreme
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/
This link has a very intereting jet
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3 ... c438_radio

Centaurus A:
A Nearby Elliptical Galaxy With An Active Galactic Nucleus.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2001/0157blue/

The observation of the jet has provided scientists some surprises as well. The X-ray structure of the jet has been shown to be significantly different than the radio structure, and the X-ray jet is much more uneven than originally believed. These results have cast doubts on simple models of how the energetic particles ejected from the active nucleus travel along the jet.

Centaurus A Jet:
Energetic Jet Meets Resistance In Nearby Galaxy
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/cenajet/

PKS 1127-145:
Chandra Scores A Double Bonus With A Distant Quasar
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1127/

The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons.

SNR G54.1+0.3:
Energetic Ring Marks Spot That Leads to Discovery of Neutron Star
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/g541/

The Chandra image of the distant supernova remnant SNR G54.1+0.3 reveals a bright ring of high-energy particles with a central point-like source. This observation enabled scientists to use the giant Arecibo Radio Telescope to search for and locate the pulsar, or neutron star that powers the ring. The ring of particles and two jet-like structures appear to be due to the energetic flow of radiation and particles from the rapidly spinning neutron star rotating 7 times per second.

Vela Pulsar Jet:
Firehose-Like Jet Observed In Action
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/vela_pulsar/

Jets Spout Far Closer to Black Hole Than Thought, Scientists Say
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/04_rel ... 10504.html

They have found that the jets may be originating five times closer to the black hole than previously thought; they see in better detail how these jets change with time and distance from the black hole; and they could use this information as a new technique to measure black hole mass.

Jets in Supermassive and Stellar-Mass Black Holes
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai ... ph/0302195

Relativistic outflows are a common phenomenon in accreting black holes. Despite the enormous differences in scale, stellar-mass black holes in X-ray binaries and collapsars, and super-massive black holes at the dynamic centre of galaxies are sources of jets with analogous physical properties. Synergism between the research on microquasars, gamma-ray bursts, and Active Galactic Nuclei should help to gain insight into the physics of relativistic jets seen everywhere in the Universe.

Plasma
The Fundamental State of Matter
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm

The Z-Pinch
Electric current, passing through a plasma, will take on the corkscrew (spiral) shape discovered by Birkeland. These Birkeland currents most often occur in pairs. There is a tendency for these pairs to compress between them any material (ionized or not) in the plasma. This is called the "z-pinch" effect. The ability of Birkeland currents to accrete and compress even non-ionized material is called "Marklund convection".

Double Layers
One of the most important properties of any electrical plasma is its ability to "self-organize" - that is, to electrically isolate one section of itself from another. The isolating wall is called a double layer (DL). When a plasma is studied in the lab, it is usually contained in a closed cylindrical glass tube. Electrodes are inserted into the ends of the tube - one electrode (called the anode) is maintained at a higher voltage than the electrode at the other end (the cathode). If such a voltage difference is applied, then ionization will be initiated and current will start to flow through the plasma. Positive ions (atoms with one or more electrons stripped off) will migrate away from the anode, and negative ions (atoms carrying one or more extra electrons) will move toward the anode. The mathematical sum of these two oppositely directed flows constitutes the total current in the plasma.

X-RAY JET DYNAMICS IN A POLAR CORONAL HOLE REGION
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0711/0711.4320.pdf

Movie clip
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3 ... nim_lg.mpg

JETS IN SUPERMASSIVE AND STELLAR-MASS BLACK
HOLES
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format ... %2F0302195

Image:Magnetic rope.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magnetic_rope.png

The Bakerian Lecture, 1982: Galaxies and Their Nuclei
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4 ... 0.CO%3B2-V

Magnetic cocoons power energetic cosmic rays
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12818

Vast magnetic cocoons associated with galaxies whose black holes have stopped eating may be responsible for accelerating charged particles called cosmic rays to within a whisker of the speed of light.

NASA: Major Step Toward Knowing Origin of Cosmic Rays

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... _rays.html

With Chandra’s high spatial resolution, the team monitored X-ray hot spots that brightened and faded in less than a year. In particular, a bright hot spot seen in July 2005 was invisible in both July 2000 and May 2006. Such rapid X-ray variability shows that particles are rapidly being produced and lost in a small region of space. Because these same hot spots barely moved from 2000 to 2006, Uchiyama and his colleagues could set an upper limit to the speed of the shock front: 10 million miles per hour. This result helped the team deduce the strength of the magnetic field.

Only one known process can explain the Chandra observations. Electrons must be spiraling along magnetic-field lines and radiating away their energy as so-called synchrotron radiation. For such a rapid increase and decrease in X-ray intensity, electrons must be accelerating and emitting synchrotron radiation in the presence of a magnetic field hundreds of times stronger than typical fields in interstellar space.

"Magnetic field strength lies at the heart of cosmic-ray acceleration theory," says Uchiyama. "Previous estimates of magnetic fields in supernova remnants were based on indirect arguments. In our study, we determine the magnetic field in a direct manner."

NASA Scientists Determine the Nature of Black Hole Jets
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... azars.html

Black hole particle jets are commonly seen in quasars and other celestial objects, shooting off at nearly light speed. According to the Swift team, these jets appear to be made of protons and electrons, solving a mystery as old as the discovery of jets themselves in the 1970s. The jets observed by Swift contain about the mass of Jupiter if it were pulverized and blasted out into intergalactic space.

Black hole particle jets typically escape the confines of their host galaxies and flow for hundreds of thousands of light years. They are a primary means of redistributing matter and energy in the universe. They are a key to understanding galaxy formation and are tied to numerous cosmic mysteries, such as the origin of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.

"Black hole jets are one of the great paradoxes in astronomy," said Rita Sambruna of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "How is it that black holes, so efficient at pulling matter in, can also accelerate matter away at near light speed? We still don't know how these jets form, but at least we now have a solid idea about what they're made of."

Fornax A
http://www.nrao.edu/imagegallery/php/level3.php?id=501

Blowtorch Jet in NGC6251
http://www.nrao.edu/imagegallery/php/level3.php?id=513

Relativistic jets and beams in radio galaxies
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 ... 516a0.html

RADIO-ASTRONOMICAL observations have recently clarified the link between the components of extended double sources and the primary power supply in the central galactic nucleus. The new data vindicate the general idea1−4 that power is continuously supplied by beams; it seems, furthermore, that the beams are collimated in a scale little larger than the central power supply ( 1 pc), and that the orientation remains fairly steady over the whole lifetime. The giant double source 3C236, 2 107 light yr in total extent5,6, has a compact central component aligned with the overall axis7; a similar phenomenon is observed in Cygnus A (ref. 8). In NGC6251, a straight jet 200 kpc long9 emanates from a 'blowtorch' 0.1 pc wide in the galactic nucleus10. There is a radio jet11 in 3C147 reminiscent of the well-known features in M87 and 3C273; and very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) reveals linear structure in several compact extragalactic sources12. It is argued here that collimation occurs close to a central collapsed object, and that the beams are orientated along its spin axis. Strong-field gravitational effects then stabilise the beams against jitter even if the gas fuelling the source has an inconstant flow pattern. Radio galaxies where the beam axis seems to have gradually drifted or swung, rather than pointing in a constant direction, may belong to a special class that have experienced collisions and recurrent nuclear activity.

Two "Black Holes?"
{link to non-science website removed}

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:57 pm

harry, I edited your post to remove the links to non-science websites.

Please do not include links to such sites again.

As has been said, many times, this is a scientific website.

It is not approporiate to use it for promotion of non-science, pseudo-science, nonsense, or anti-science material.

Think of it like this: there are thousands of non-science, pseudo-science, nonsense, and anti-science websites on the internet. If you are allowed to promote one such website, shouldn't anyone also be then allowed to promote any other such website? Where would it end??

Also, just out of curiousity, how do you, harry, go about judging, assessing, testing, etc the various claims, assertions, and so on that you find on these sites? You can't be using the standard tools of astronomy/space science/astrophysics/cosmology (including, as necessary, plasma physics)!

And if you're curious to learn about Abell 400 (for example), why not simply ask?

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:36 pm

Hello Neried

You said

Also, just out of curiousity, how do you, harry, go about judging, assessing, testing, etc the various claims, assertions, and so on that you find on these sites? You can't be using the standard tools of astronomy/space science/astrophysics/cosmology (including, as necessary, plasma physics)!

I read quite a bit.

More so than many

At this moment, the science of cosmology is just a scratch on a scratch of information.

There are so many theories and ideas out there that are so funny and yet are taken to heart by many.

If I use the standard tools as I did many years ago I would be trapped in the zone of "knowing" and learning would come to a stand still.

As for the links you stop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its ok

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:05 pm

harry wrote:Hello Neried

You said

Also, just out of curiousity, how do you, harry, go about judging, assessing, testing, etc the various claims, assertions, and so on that you find on these sites? You can't be using the standard tools of astronomy/space science/astrophysics/cosmology (including, as necessary, plasma physics)!
I read quite a bit.

That tells us WHAT you do; it does not tell us HOW you decide, assess, or test anything that you read.

More so than many

At this moment, the science of cosmology is just a scratch on a scratch of information.

I guess the question here is, to what extent are you, harry, undertaking assessment (of what you read) in a scientific fashion?

I mean, what tools, techniques, and methods do you use?

There are so many theories and ideas out there that are so funny and yet are taken to heart by many.

May one conclude from this that a (key) harry method, of assessing ideas you read, is whether they make you laugh?

That if they don't make you laugh then they must be at least partly OK?

That if they do make you laugh then they are not OK?

If I use the standard tools as I did many years ago I would be trapped in the zone of "knowing" and learning would come to a stand still.

Not quite sure I follow you here harry: are you saying that - for example - you learned enough math to be able to follow General Relativity, and could grasp why a static universe (one with matter-energy in it anyway) is not possible?

makc · Post by **makc** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:28 am

Nereid wrote:are you saying that - for example - you learned enough math to be able to follow General Relativity, and could grasp why a static universe (one with matter-energy in it anyway) is not possible?

just a side question to Nereid, "not possible" is some heavy word. how do you, Nereid, know for sure that *any* theory subsuming GR experimentally confirmed results will also forbid such a model? is there such a theorem? because otherwise, GR is not enough to claim a thing "not possible".

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:42 pm

Hello Neried

So far your comments prove to me that you read words out of context and place meanings that you want.

Thats OK.

The danger in that is that you will lead and give information along that path. I just hope you are right.

I have previously asked for proof of the BBT.

and you keep on giving me links without evidence and outdated information regardless if it is written by some scientist.

You show me how you test or asses papers.

You directed me to links and when I use them you still question them.

Do you really understand cosmology?

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:55 pm

makc wrote:
Nereid wrote:are you saying that - for example - you learned enough math to be able to follow General Relativity, and could grasp why a static universe (one with matter-energy in it anyway) is not possible?
just a side question to Nereid, "not possible" is some heavy word. how do you, Nereid, know for sure that *any* theory subsuming GR experimentally confirmed results will also forbid such a model? is there such a theorem? because otherwise, GR is not enough to claim a thing "not possible".

Good point makc; you're right, static solutions to GR applied to a universe containing mass-energy are ruled out only with respect to such universes as are governed by mass-energy of the forms we know today, and also assume no forces other than the three covered by the Standard Model (electromagnetism, the weak, and the strong). Naturally, such solutions also assume that 'GR rules, OK?', at least over length scales from microns to giga-parsecs.