Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:02 am**

Hello Starnut

It does not matter what I think.

What matters is you doing research:

Google for:

Neutron Stars Cosmology
Compact Core Cosmology
Star Formation Cosmology

Than come back and discuss Neutron Stars.

Than read up on the formation of the elements within the solar envelope.

The information is out there.

Posted: **Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:16 am**

harry wrote: Hello JohnD

Mate at this moment you are right. But I have no strings being pulled.

My other comp has the information, it will take time.

Gnomic as ever.
Why should anyone listen to you, if you hide behind another name?
John

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:46 am**

harry wrote:
What matters is you doing research:

Google for:

Neutron Stars Cosmology
Compact Core Cosmology
Star Formation Cosmology

Than read up on the formation of the elements within the solar envelope.

The information is out there.

I duly did as you suggested - googling those terms - and Google did not find anything about them. Did you invent them? More figments of your imagination?

Just once, why don't you take the time to tell us what you know instead of telling us to look for non-existing info elsewhere?

Posted: **Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:13 pm**

huh?

Neutron Stars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuetron_star
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... ybrid.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Res ... utron.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... utron.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/CosmosNotes/COSMOLGY.HTM

Compact Cores
http://www.ice.csic.es/en/view_research_line.php?RID=18
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...353..823C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983heac.book..394F
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=6541826

Star Formation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
http://www.alma.nrao.edu/science/cosmol ... 0000000000
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/stars_and_galaxy.htm

=/

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:17 am**

Oh, I get it. At first I thought this was a discussion forum but now I see that it's a bickering forum. I've seen this "banter" amongst you spill into other topics as well. What is this a king of the universe contest or some such thing? I posted a thought or two about V838 and got brushed aside with a comment on dark matter. It was like politics in that it did not answer the question posed. In fact, my somewhat facetious response went unnoticed altogether. Now, I've watched APOD for better than three years, which isn't long, but I'm not stupid. I decided to join this forum to learn something and maybe gain a little deeper appreciation for the processes at work around this universe of ours and my first time out I get the heave-ho. Is this why the input on this particular topic is practically nil? Why don't you guys give it a rest and email privately- It's all so boring!

For my exit from this forum: if one of you would like to answer my question regarding V838, the key phrase is: "Could the nuclear composition ever be such" with the key word being "EVER". A simple, honest "yes" or "no" will suffice, key word being"HONEST" and you can get back at each pther's fine-pointed throats.

Goodbye

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:34 am**

Arramon wrote:huh?

Neutron Stars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuetron_star
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... ybrid.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Res ... utron.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... utron.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/CosmosNotes/COSMOLGY.HTM

Compact Cores
http://www.ice.csic.es/en/view_research_line.php?RID=18
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...353..823C
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983heac.book..394F
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=6541826

Star Formation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
http://www.alma.nrao.edu/science/cosmol ... 0000000000
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/stars_and_galaxy.htm

=/

Harry said:

Neutron Star COSMOLOGY
Stellar Core COSMOLOGY
Star Formation COSMOLOGY

I was looking for those specific terms as Harry suggested and found that there aint no such animals!

Quoth the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

cosmology n. 1. A branch of philosophy dealing with the origin, processes, and structure of the universe. 2. The astrophysical study of the structure and constituent dynamics of the universe.

While stars are undoubtedly parts of the universe, the study of their births, lives and deaths is NOT cosmology.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:35 am**

starnut wrote:cosmology n. 1. A branch of philosophy dealing with the origin, processes, and structure of the universe. 2. The astrophysical study of the structure and constituent dynamics of the universe.

While stars are undoubtedly parts of the universe, the study of their births, lives and deaths is NOT cosmology.

Code: Select all

Google site hits
-----------------------
COSMOLOGY    :  7,970,000
COSMETOLOGY  :  4,540,000
METROLOGY    :  3,690,000
METEOROLOGY  :  9,020,000
METEORICS    :      2,350

Order the above subjects from most apt to least apt vis-a-vis:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sci ... age_id=166

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:44 pm**

astrolabe wrote:For my exit from this forum: if one of you would like to answer my question regarding V838, the key phrase is: "Could the nuclear composition ever be such" with the key word being "EVER". A simple, honest "yes" or "no" will suffice, key word being"HONEST" and you can get back at each pther's fine-pointed throats.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You were answered at bottom of page two by starnut. You even responded to the reply at the top of page three. Did you not get the answer you wanted? I don't know about "EVER", but your answer seems to be "Probably not."

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:02 pm**

Speaking of not being able to follow directions;

Results 1 - 10 of about 429,000 for neutron stars cosmology. (0.27 seconds)

Was the brightest supernova the birth of a quark star? - cosmology ...
But the team argues that some neutron stars last only a short time because their magnetic properties cause their spin rates to drastically slow down. ...
space.newscientist.com/ channel/astronomy/cosmology/dn12514

Results 1 - 10 of about 64,000 for compact cores cosmology. (0.18 seconds)

The Asterisk* :: View topic - Light Echoes from V838 Mon, diameter ...
It does not matter what I think. What matters is you doing research: Google for: Neutron Stars Cosmology Compact Core Cosmology Star Formation Cosmology ...
asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=13119& start=30&sid=786290ee02597d4ad1d3d1a30acb3677
(Oh look, your spat is now enshrined in google forever !)

ICE - Quark matter, signatures in compact stars and cosmology
Quark matter, signatures in compact stars and cosmology ... This phase may be present in the core of compact stars, or still in the hypothetical quark stars ...
http://www.ice.csic.es/en/view_research_line.php?RID=18

Results 1 - 10 of about 320,000 for star formation cosmology. (0.42 seconds)

Report of the Cosmology and Extragalactic Working Group
Overview; Highlights; Cosmology and the Early Universe; Epoch of Galaxy Formation and Subsequent Galaxy Evolution; Imaging Gas in Galaxies: Star Formation, ...
http://www.alma.nrao.edu/science/cosmology/cos.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

CONSTRAINTS ON COSMOLOGY AND GALAXY FORMATION FROM THE NHDF
cosmology independent observations such as the apparent magnitude function to. heavily cosmology and model dependent constraints such as the star formation ...
http://www.springerlink.com/index/r127862x4721837q.pdf - Similar pages

- - -

The spirit of scientific discussion is to listen to others, and by allowing their imperfect human condition then look for what it is they are trying to say and what is it they really mean; and not devolve into self-ego driven squabbling.

- - -

I interpret what Harry is saying is, Mainstream science has a long way to go before it correctly explains things, and it should keep its ears open to new ideas. For, as science throws out 95% of what it thinks is correct theory every 500 years, in 500 years mainstream will be saying quite different things than today.

Those who are rigid in their thinking and opinions, will be broken off by the winds of change. Those who are flexible in considering many ideas will only be bent by the wind, and live to smile another day!

- - -

In my arrogant opinion (IMAO)

; As inertia containing matter accumulates (as the star grows in mass), the gravity increases and causes the electrical properties of matter to start affecting a response, that of an electric field and magnetic effects. This resultant growing electrical effect as gravity grows, is what causes the nova to occur. In my view matter can never accumulate to the point of its gravity being so strong it will form a black hole. The electrical effects will disperse matter faster than gravity can accumulate it. Witness the 'jets' in Cygnus A and the Crab Nebula. Those jets are a result of the electrical reaction to an intense gravity field. As the gravity gets stronger, the electrics will throw more matter away further and faster. The Black Hole will never be allowed to form. The fact that stars nova is the proof that black holes are prevented from forming. Nova is natures way of prevention, otherwise the universe would have disappeared down a black hole long ago.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:08 am**

Quote "Those who are rigid in their thinking and opinions, will be broken off by the winds of change. Those who are flexible in considering many ideas will only be bent by the wind, and live to smile another day! "

I just bent in that wind and still here. So that idea move away. Is that O.K.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:21 am**

Hello All

Starnut said

I duly did as you suggested - googling those terms - and Google did not find anything about them. Did you invent them? More figments of your imagination?

Just once, why don't you take the time to tell us what you know instead of telling us to look for non-existing info elsewhere?

Mate you must be on another planet. Making silly statements is really nice of you. If you do not want to read to understand than no one can help you.

====================================
Hello Kovil

How are you?

I have ben trying to send you email,,,,,,,,,,,they return to sender.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:41 am**

Hello Astrolabe

You said

Oh, I get it. At first I thought this was a discussion forum but now I see that it's a bickering forum. I've seen this "banter" amongst you spill into other topics as well. What is this a king of the universe contest or some such thing? I posted a thought or two about V838 and got brushed aside with a comment on dark matter. It was like politics in that it did not answer the question posed. In fact, my somewhat facetious response went unnoticed altogether. Now, I've watched APOD for better than three years, which isn't long, but I'm not stupid. I decided to join this forum to learn something and maybe gain a little deeper appreciation for the processes at work around this universe of ours and my first time out I get the heave-ho. Is this why the input on this particular topic is practically nil? Why don't you guys give it a rest and email privately- It's all so boring!

For my exit from this forum: if one of you would like to answer my question regarding V838, the key phrase is: "Could the nuclear composition ever be such" with the key word being "EVER". A simple, honest "yes" or "no" will suffice, key word being"HONEST" and you can get back at each pther's fine-pointed throats.

Your right.

You hit the nail on the head.

You said

The dialog is "lively" to be sure! My own knowledge of such processes is pretty laughable so all I have are novice opinions at best. V838 is truly gorgeous in a dusty sort of way. Could the nuclear composition that began this event ever be such that it would illuminate dark matter once released? The "fur" looks more akin to matter caught up in magnetic lines of force with say north at 2:00 and south at 8:00 or some other similar alignment. An honestly astounding photo.

What type of dark matter are you talking about?

It would illuminate what ever it hits. But! dark matter has varies meanings and defined in so many ways and yet there is no evidence for DARK MATTER.

Posted: **Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:14 am**

Harry

There is absolutely no evidence for Dark Matter?

1. So there is no unexplained matter/force that is reacting with observable matter

2. Are you saying everything is observable or that there cannot be matter unkown to us

Posted: **Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:51 pm**

Hello Martin

You said

There is absolutely no evidence for Dark Matter?

1. So there is no unexplained matter/force that is reacting with observable matter

2. Are you saying everything is observable or that there cannot be matter unkown to us

Matter that cannot been seen is called Dark Matter. The so called black holes that contain millions and billions of sun masses, the theoretical quark stars and preon stars and other compacted star cores are all dark matter in that we are unable to see them. But! we can see their effects on their surroundings. This is one form of dark matter.

Using the word absolute is too hash. But than again I agree with you.

Posted: **Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:09 pm**

I liked the quote on the Discovery channel last night...

"Dark Matter is... A metaphor for our ignorance."

Something along those lines.

-Noel

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:33 am**

Hello NoelC

Yep, at the initial stages it was brought out as an ad hoc idea to make the Big Bang Theory look correct.

Posted: **Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:27 pm**

No, dark matter theory originated with observations of the orbits of galaxies in large galaxy clusters, and the rotation curves of stars in spiral galaxies; it had nothing to do with Big Bang theory.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:49 am**

Is that a retraction Harry

Nice quote NoelC.
However, "ignorance" is a very harsh word. Science is and will always be playing catch-up. It is not ignorance to not know -but it is ignorant to refuse to give merit to evidence or a good

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:17 am**

Hello Qev

You said

No, dark matter theory originated with observations of the orbits of galaxies in large galaxy clusters, and the rotation curves of stars in spiral galaxies; it had nothing to do with Big Bang theory.

Show me the link that proves that point.

That it had nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Although your statement is correct to explain orbits.

http://metaresearch.org/publications/bu ... b06cp6.asp

“Dark matter” seen? Look again!
In ApJ 648:L109-L113 (2006), astronomers claim to have found the first direct evidence for the existence of “dark matter”. Their reasoning is as follows:

Came across this link
Interesting link

Degenerate sterile neutrino dark matter in the cores of galaxies

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... 10-06.html

Scientists Say Dark Matter Doesn't Exist
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... heory.html

Two Canadian astronomers think there is a good reason dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to make up the bulk of matter in the universe, has never been directly detected: It doesn't exist.

Dark matter was invoked to explain how galaxies stick together. The visible matter alone in galaxies—stars, gas and dust—is nowhere near enough to hold them together, so scientists reasoned there must be something invisible that exerts gravity and is central to all galaxies.

Big bang sound waves explain galaxy clustering
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6871

Sound waves that roared through space after the big bang left behind a subtle imprint in the way galaxies are clustered today, reveal two major studies. The results bolster the standard theory that the universe is flat, and measuring the distance between the sound ripples may provide a new cosmic yardstick to probe the past.

Two independent teams mapping the universe have found that galaxies are currently slightly more likely to be 500 million light years apart than any other distance. The finding, a result of the conditions in the early universe, was announced on Tuesday at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San Diego, California, US.

The results back the standard models of a flat universe, dominated by dark matter and dark energy, that has been expanding since the rapid period of inflation just after the big bang. Generally speaking, the distance between galaxies matches the pattern of sound wave ripples from the early universe.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:42 pm**

Martin wrote:However, "ignorance" is a very harsh word. Science is and will always be playing catch-up. It is not ignorance to not know -but it is ignorant to refuse to give merit to evidence or a good

Ignorance does, in fact, mean lack of knowledge. Asinine, I think, is the word you're looking for.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:16 pm**

Nice quote NoelC.
However, "ignorance" is a very harsh word. Science is and will always be playing catch-up. It is not ignorance to not know -but it is ignorant to refuse to give merit to evidence or a good

Ignorance is "Not Knowing" and can be easily overcome - unlike Stupidity or Asinine.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:45 pm**

I like to practice a little humility from time to time.

I am ignorant. I may never be otherwise.

-Noel

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:39 pm**

harry wrote:Hello Qev

You said

No, dark matter theory originated with observations of the orbits of galaxies in large galaxy clusters, and the rotation curves of stars in spiral galaxies; it had nothing to do with Big Bang theory.
Show me the link that proves that point.

That it had nothing to do with the Big Bang.

As I said, it originated from the observations of galactic motion in galaxy clusters, published by Fritz Zwicky back in 1937. This was then followed up 40 years later by the work of Vera Rubin on galactic rotation curves. That is was discovered by observation independent of Big Bang theory, and its inclusion in Big Bang cosmology serves to strengthen the model, should say something about both theories.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:21 pm**

Quote:

"Scientists Say Dark Matter Doesn't Exist
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... heory.html

Quote:
Two Canadian astronomers think there is a good reason dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to make up the bulk of matter in the universe, has never been directly detected: It doesn't exist.

Dark matter was invoked to explain how galaxies stick together. The visible matter alone in galaxies—stars, gas and dust—is nowhere near enough to hold them together, so scientists reasoned there must be something invisible that exerts gravity and is central to all galaxies. "

From the same article at the end (Conclusion):

Douglas Clowe, the lead astronomer of the team that linked the Bullet Cluster observations with dark matter (and now at Ohio University), says he still stands by his original claim. For him and many other astronomers, conjuring up new particles that might account for dark matter is more palatable than turning a fundamental theory of how the univese works on its head.

"As far as we're concerned, [Moffat] hasn't done anything that makes us retract our earlier statement that the Bullet Cluster shows us that we have to have dark matter," Clowe said. "We're still open to modifying gravity to reduce the amount of dark matter, but we're pretty sure that you have to have most of the mass of the universe still in some form of dark matter."

So they use a modified gravity theory to explain their result but modified gravity need more test for now. Does it realy exist? Still many question. We need many answers. For now it is an idea. How much priority it should have for a research fund remain to be seen. We'll see later. It doesnt seem to be enough yet. So dont change your mind yet.

Posted: **Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:43 am**

Hello Qev

What you say is correct.

What I'm saying is that dark matter has varies definitons. The Big Bang used it to prop up the BBT.

Starship Asterisk*

split from Light Echoes from V838 Mon (APOD 03 Feb 2008)

split from Light Echoes from V838 Mon (APOD 03 Feb 2008)