Starship Asterisk*

As for my ideas. Name one that you think against.

A steady-state universe.

Hello Dr Skeptic

Not that I believe in the steady state.

What do you know about it?

There are varies forms of it.

The COBE project has confirmed that the CBR measurements in density and temperature fits the profile of a single event, unifying similar density observations, the Hubble Constant and most every BB related theory. No published theories of the steady-state universe matches this profile.

Hello Dr Skeptic

You keep on thinking the way you want.

I have to go to dinner right now.

I will come back to this. Darn wife has just cooked.

Hello All

This is interesting reading.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... 427sun.htm

Most astronomers and astrophysicists investigating the Sun are so convinced of the fusion model that only the rarest among them will countenance challenges to the underlying idea. Standard textbooks and institutional research, complemented by a chorus of scientific and popular media, “ratify” the fusion model of the Sun year after year by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

A growing group of independent researchers, however, insists that the popular idea is incorrect. These researchers say that the Sun is electric. It is a glow discharge fed by galactic currents. And they emphasize that the fusion model anticipated none of the milestone discoveries about the Sun, while the electric model predicts and explains the very observations that posed the greatest quandaries for solar investigation

Are we kept in the dark by the standard models are we treated as Mushrooms and fed BS fron Uranius.

harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic

Not that I believe in the steady state.

What do you know about it?

There are varies forms of it.

There are only two options I know of, the Big Bang or a Steady State. If you totally disagree with the BB model, and you are indecisive on a SS model, what other options do you have? Mythology?

Hello Dr Skeptic

You are right, the way I think is along the steady state, but! at this point in time I cannot say that I agree with some ideas.

I'm interested in the functioning of the stars and galaxies. This would Iron out any ripples in thought.
=========================================
question for all

How long would it take to form our mily way?

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

As for the Big Bang, think what you like.

How long would it take to form our mily way?

Depends on what you mean by form. Its still acreting matter right now, by tidally stripping dwarf galaxies.

However, most of the mass in stars was probably formed before 5-10Gyr ago. So I guess it took 3-8 Gyr to from. Depending on your definition of what formation is.

Hello Astro

Darn spelling, Milky Way

I guess if you follow the logic of the Big Bang, the most it would have taken would be 13.7 or so Gyrs.

OOps got to go.
Dinner time.

Hello All

M4: The Closest Known Globular Cluster

Cluster white dwarfs appear to be at least nine billion years old.

If these white dwarfs were formed 9 Gyrs ago and we can see 13.2 Gyrs one wonders how the BBT can say that the universe is 13.7 Gyr

If my maths is correct

9 + 13.2 = 22.2 Gyrs and thats not allowing for the age of the billions of galaxies that we see in deep field.


Am I missing something.

Er yes,

The the stars the white dwarfs formed from were born 9 Gyr ago, when the Universe was
13.7 - 9 = 4.7 Gyr old.

13.2 Gyr is how far back we can observe, why would you add that to the age of a star? Its like saying
I am 55 years old and I have pictures of me that go back 40 years, so I must actually have been born 95 years ago.

Hello Astro


ooops

But! it does not mean that that 4.7 Gyr relates to the age of the universe.

No it just means that it is entirely compatible with BBT for those stars to from in the time allowed after the BB. From those stars we know the Universe must be at least 9 Gyr old, from GCs we know it must be at least 12-13Gyr old, both of which are compatible with the BBT.

All we can infer from this evidence is that the Universe must be older than 13 Gyr. We have to look to other lines of enquiry to get closer to the true age.

Hello Astro

No Way. That is not science.

You cannot use a theory and assume the age of the universe.

What do you mean?

I said we can infer from the age of stars that the Universe must be older than they are. I havent assumed anything, except that the stars weren't there before the Universe, which by definition they can't have been.

How can that possibly be controversial?

Hello Astro

Your assuming that there was a BB and there is an origin.

I never said that, I said that all we can infer is that the Universe is greater than 13Gyr old, from this data that is all we can do, the Universe could be 13.1Gyr old or it could be infinite.

We could make some suppositions if we wanted, but we could not be sure. For example we could say "that as we only see things that are a maximum of 13Gyr old it is likely that the Universe must be finite in age", simple logic says that this is true, why would the Universe be infinite in age and not start to form stars until some point in time?

However from other pieces of information (CMB, cosmic expansion etc) we can determine a more exact age, which is finite. I'd say the actual measured age, probably has errors +-1-2Gyr, though the error bars are larger on the higher side. It really can't be much younger than we measure.

Hello Astro.

Its MAN who wants the origin and not the universe.

We can see past 13.7 billion yrs, its only a matter of time.

I'm off to bed.

I'm beat.

Nice talking to you. Sorry my responses have been simple. My mind is else where.

Hello All

Oliver manuel emailed me this:

Three news items show that the space science community
is finally headed in the right direction!

1. "Onion-skin layers survive SN explosion!" CalTech,
26 Oct 2006 http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/re ... ease.shtml

2. "Supernova explodes into layers of elements," NASA,
26 Oct 2006 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitz ... 01901.html

3. "Supernova was stunningly close", Space.com, 24 Oct
2006 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... sters.html

These discoveries show that the origin of the solar
system was very much like that first reported at the
AGU meeting in Washington, DC in April 1976 and
published in the January 1977 issue of Science.

Compare, for example, NASA's drawing (#2 above) with
the drawing (below) that the late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu
and Oliver Manuel showed at the meeting of the Americal
Geophysical Union in Washington, DC in April 1976.

Hello All

Have a look at the link

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitz ... 01901.html

Could these onion layers be a finger print of possibly the inner layers of the sun.

In the link it talks about the death of the sun after the supernova.

I thought it was just a phase that stars go through and possibly rejuvinate the core of the future star.

Hello All

Just adding some information that may have been left out.

Oliver Manuel
said

Thanks for the message. I guess most stars are
spinning. They therefore explode axially. That
produces the Hour Glass formation.

Apparently I failed to communicate isotope evidence
that different elements in the Solar System came from
different chemical layers of a supernova (SN) that
exploded in just that manner:

a.) Troilite (FeS) inclusions of meteorites contain
"normal" Xe isotope abundances, like the Sun, Earth
and Mars, from the inner SN layers [http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/p ... 010017.PDF].

b.) Jupiter and diamond inclusions of primitive
meteorites contain "strange" Xe with He and other
light elements from the outer SN layers [http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/wi ... alysis.pdf].

Hello All

Heavyweight Stars Light Up Nebula NGC 6357
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... es/2006/54

They are estimated to each be 100 solar masses

Amazing, imaging when this goes supernova, we can expect a black hole formation.

At the present moment we have,I think about a million small black holes.

If not more.

Hello All

I forgot to add
this link

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0619.html
News Release - heic0619: Star on a Hubble diet

Pismis 24-1’s “weight loss” may continue in the future: ground-based observations indicate that Pismis 24-1 could even be a triple star system. Although each of the three stars would then only average 70 solar masses, they would still make it to the top twenty-five for “Milky Way heavyweights”, but only for a few million years as they would be sure to end their lives as supernovae and then turn into black holes.

Massive stars can be the precursors of either black holes or neutron stars, formed in the supernovae that are the final spectacular flaring of a collapsing massive star and the main sources of the heavy elements in the Universe. By studying massive stars astronomers gain a deeper insight into our current understanding of black holes, supernova explosions and the chemical composition of the Universe.

Hello All

Got this in the email

W3 Main: A Productive Star Formation Factory

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/w3/

W3 is a region where many massive stars are forming in a string of stellar clusters, located about 6,000 light years from Earth in the Perseus arm of the Milky Way galaxy. W3 is part of a vast molecular cloud complex that also contains the W4 superbubble (not seen in this image). Scientists believe that the extraordinary amount of star formation in W3 has possibly been influenced by neighboring W4, an inflating bubble of gas over 100 light years across.

Hello All

Nice movies from chandra

http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/podcasts/