Starship Asterisk*

Stars themselves cannot create the heaviest elements. End of story Harry.

Martin wrote:Stars themselves cannot create the heaviest elements. End of story Harry.

Martin,
just thinking aloud...If the only thing in the early universe was stars, then where did the heavier elements come from ..if not from stars??

Hello Martin

Elements formed in the solar envelope are from H to Fe and Ni

Heavier elements do form, but are broken down to Fe.

The lucky elements that do form and are blown in the solar wind are recorded.

During the process of a supernova conditions alter allowing heavier elements to remain stable and form parts of nebula and parts of solar systems.

This information you can googl for.

===========================

Its never the end of story.

Imagine If I took your word to be true.

Allow me to rephrase:

Are stars alone responsible for the creation of all known elements of matter?

Hello Martin

In a recycling universe:

Matter changes to many phases including degenerate phase. Similarly varies phases including degenerate matter such as Neutron stars, where Neutrons are packed very close 10^17 Kg/m3.

Neutrons are released to H where fusion creates He and so on producing heavy elements, Fe and Ni are the heaviest stable elements.

Similar process occurs in the compacted cores (Nucleons), that are called black holes.

Yes, I know people say nothing escapes a black hole. But in recent years people have found that the jets are found 5 times closer to the core than previously thought. Some even think that the jets originated and driven by the core.

Do we have evidence to support this. No, because we cannot see into these compact cores.

The formation of the elements can be researched easily.

Martin wrote:Stars themselves cannot create the heaviest elements...

BMAONE23 wrote:just thinking aloud...If the only thing in the early universe was stars, then where did the heavier elements come from ..if not from stars??

harry wrote:Elements formed in the solar envelope are from H to Fe and Ni. Heavier elements do form, but are broken down to Fe. The lucky elements that do form and are blown in the solar wind are recorded. During the process of a supernova conditions alter allowing heavier elements to remain stable and form parts of nebula and parts of solar systems.

Martin wrote:Allow me to rephrase: Are stars alone responsible for the creation of all known elements of matter?

I have to go with BMAONE23 and harry on this: If not the stars, then where? The immense energy and pressures required to fuse smaller nuclei into ever larger nuclei exists nowhere else. Even if you accept BBT, at that instant, there were no nuclei at all to work with.

I disagree that only elements up thru Fe are formed within stars. Even though super novae may be the source of most of the heavier elements, some must form within stars. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przybylski's_star

Hello All

Martin is right in a way, some of the heaviest elements are produced away from stars. You will get varies elements formed on earth and any other planets.

ASTROPHYSICS: ON STELLAR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS
http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa041126-2.htm

star
https://edit.britannica.com/getEditableToc?tocId=52853

Supernovas: Making Astronomical History
Fusion and Building Chemical Elements
Binding Energies

http://snews.bnl.gov/popsci/fusion.html

4-7 Photons Create New Heavy Elements in Supernovae
- Photodisintegration Reaction Nucleosynthesis in Supernova Explosions -
http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/f ... 7/4_7.html

Supernova nucleosynthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis

Hello Eddy

You said

Be kind and remember this is only brainstorming form someone who´s
understanding is limmited by somewhat brainstorming sessions of this subject... no training of some sort..

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,is all I can say.

Hi Harry, Craterchains and firey ice
Greetings from the land of sand and oil
24 days to the promised land, The USA……
With that post by endy there is nothing I can do but smile

I never met a weapon I didn’t like Ronald Regan ( 1989 )

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Hello THX1138

Whats this 24 days? Is this a holiday?

Hello endy

Keep reading and discussing what ever subject.

THX1138
Best wishes for a safe and speedy return to the land of normalcy

Hello BMAone23

What do you mean best wishes?

They're on holidays, break a leg.
===================================

Jets may explain the origins or maybe the ongoing process throuth the universe.


Hello All

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 074724.htm

The disks of hot gas, known as accretion disks, are commonly observed around black holes with orbiting stellar companions, but the near simultaneous disappearance of the disk and formation of the jet has never been seen before. It promises to shed light on the origin of the enigmatic jets, also commonly observed near accreting black holes, but poorly understood.

"The system behaves like the celestial version of Old Faithful," notes Dr. Craig Markwardt, a researcher working with Swank at Goddard. "At fairly regular intervals, the accretion disk is disrupted and a fast moving jet is produced."

"This jet is staggeringly more powerful than a geyser," adds Swank. "Every half-hour, the black hole, in the constellation Aquila, throws off the mass equal to that of a 100 trillion ton asteroid at nearly the speed of light (approximately 650 million miles per hour). This process clearly requires a lot of energy -- each cycle is equivalent to six trillion times the annual energy consumption of the entire United States."

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.

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.

As for jets, the size of the jet is determined by the size of the compacted core and not by the so called feeding.

Black holes can vary from 3.5 to over 10 billions sun masses.

So the size of the jet in some may not even bee seen.


Here are some jets
[link to unacceptable site removed]
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/3c273.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011101.html

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

===========================================================

Black holes is one object that needs further research, there are too many unkowns for scientists to make assumptions before further research.

The idea that nothing can escape a black hole is old hat. A black hole like any other compacted matter is able to form jets from within and not from in falling matter. That is my opinion.

In falling matter is not able to generate power enough to create velocities to escape the so called black hole.

A jet stream created by the compacted matter via z_pinch dynamics is able to give the jet properties electromagnetic properties that are not influenced by the forces of the so called black hole. Allowing a straight stream of matter to be ejected for thousands to millions of light years from the source. Reforming their surrounding, such as different galaxy forms.

These are ideas and I'm not saying they are correct, just trying to address some issues.

Ladies and gentleman HE's BAAAACCCKKK...



Could it be the residue of an imploded star....
I dont know... Could it be that what we do not see..... Exactly
They say in a crazy mind could lie the sollution.....

G'day

endy have you been drinking?

harry wrote:G'day

endy have you been drinking?

Perhaps the answer lies at the bottom of a pint of ale? 8)

Hello Orca

I had a look at the bottom of a pint and there was no ale or endy.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Interesting reading

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.04.htm

Are old galaxies smaller, bigger or neither?

Three new papers on galaxy size deepen the contradiction between expanding-universe predictions and measurements. Van Dokkum et al look at very massive galaxies at a redshift of about 2.3 and find that on average they are 5- 6 times smaller in radius and hundreds of times denser than massive galaxies in today’s universe. The densest of these high-z galaxies have densities five times that of any galaxies that now exist. The authors speculate that perhaps mergers may result in less dense galaxies, but mergers would also result in more massive galaxies, and some of the high-z galaxies are as massive already as the most massive galaxies observed today. So, if they merged, they would create galaxies larger than any we see. Since massive galaxies are easy to find, getting rid of either extremely massive or extremely dense galaxies is difficult, akin to hiding an elephant under a rug.

What if this paper is right?

What than?

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

We were getting off the various topics on to the origin of the universe.

The question being whether there was a Big bang or no bang at all .

harry wrote:We were getting off the various topics on to the origin of the universe.

The question being whether there was a Big bang or no bang at all .

Well, the answer hasn't changed much in the last year and a half. The evidence largely supports the accuracy those theories (collectively BBTs) that argue for the origin of the Universe from a hot, dense "point" about 13.7 billion years ago.

There can be no absolute answer to the question, of course, only an answer based on where the strongest evidence currently points.

No. There was no Big Bang. Inflation and Dark Matter and Dark Energy were fuged tack ons (not Tachyons) necessary to 'explain' phenomenon not obvious when BB was first theorized. There are two legititmate alternatives as to why the galaxies are in motion .. a Great Attractor outside the visible universe, and the expansion of anti-gravity bubbles called voids. Both these theories offer better, no fudge necessary alternatives to BB. No. There was no Big Bang .. it is a primitive idea born in mankind's fascination with explosive power, and our difficulty in understanding the gentle art of growth.

aristarchusinexile wrote:... legititmate alternative ... the expansion of anti-gravity bubbles called voids ...

Ahh, so now your whimsical thought, fully unsupported by any science of any kind (pseudo or other) is a legitimate alternative to BBT. That would actually be funny if I didn't know you actually believe it.

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:... legititmate alternative ... the expansion of anti-gravity bubbles called voids ...

Ahh, so now your whimsical thought, fully unsupported by any science of any kind (pseudo or other) is a legitimate alternative to BBT. That would actually be funny if I didn't know you actually believe it.

Empirical science is based on observations .. roughly spherical (and unexplainedly huge rough spheres) called voids are observed .. groups of galaxies are observed squeezed into filaments instead of being gravitationally formed into bigger and bigger spheres .. John Moffat fully explores anti-gravity in MOG, Pascual Jordan fully explains the fact that matter can be created from nothing .. yes, my theory is empirical, and I actually believe it.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Empirical science is based on observations .. roughly spherical (and unexplainedly huge rough spheres) called voids are observed .. groups of galaxies are observed squeezed into filaments instead of being gravitationally formed into bigger and bigger spheres

What's funny is that the spongy, void-filled large scale structure of the Universe that you find so inexplicable provides some of the best supportive evidence for both the BBT and for the applicability of GR over cosmological distances. The only simulations that do a good job producing those kinds of structures use standard physics based on GR and the lambda-CDM model of the Universe.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Empirical science is based on observations .. roughly spherical (and unexplainedly huge rough spheres) called voids are observed .. groups of galaxies are observed squeezed into filaments instead of being gravitationally formed into bigger and bigger spheres

What's funny is that the spongy, void-filled large scale structure of the Universe that you find so inexplicable provides some of the best supportive evidence for both the BBT and for the applicability of GR over cosmological distances. The only simulations that do a good job producing those kinds of structures use standard physics based on GR and the lambda-CDM model of the Universe.

'inexplicable' - "impossible to explain; not easily accounted for." I find it totally easy to explain, and have explained it with total ease. It is impossible for you to accept that I don't believe what you accept, therefore you cannot accept what I have explained.

Simulations and models are done at the whimsy of the simulator or modeler. They are not empirical. I believe what I see
with my eyes and what I see on photos regarding the universe. What's funny is you don't believe what you see with your eyes even though you repeat the word empirical many times.