Starship Asterisk*

http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/ ... &date=True

With 11 billion year old supernovae it seems to me that the estimated 13.7 billion year age of the universe is a megaerror as huge as labelling me a Troll.

These are not small star supernovaes. "Researchers observed the two supernovae from the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Both were identified as type IIn supernovae, which occur when massive stars many times larger than the sun explode." If I am to believe almost everything written here at APOD, 2.7 billion years would not be nearly enough time to create the two stars.

I think the heading to this topic also needs to be revised? >>>>Agre<<<< of universe need revision again?

lol

mark swain wrote:I think the heading to this topic also needs to be revised? >>>>Agre<<<< of universe need revision again?

http://www.jhuapl.com/newscenter/pressreleases/1998/russ.asp wrote:
<<The Active Geophysical Rocket Experiment (AGRE) is a joint Russian/USA project whose objective is to investigate the dynamics of a plasma jet in space and attendant phenomena in the magnetosphere, ionosphere and atmosphere of the Earth. This project also includes a laboratory experiment designed to simulate the AGRE experiment. The results of the laboratory simulation show the important role of field-aligned current generation associated with plasma jet injections transverse to the magnetic field. It is found that field-aligned currents have an influence on the plasma jet dynamics, ambient ionosphere, and atmosphere.>>

aristarchusinexile wrote:These are not small star supernovaes. "Researchers observed the two supernovae from the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Both were identified as type IIn supernovae, which occur when massive stars many times larger than the sun explode." If I am to believe almost everything written here at APOD, 2.7 billion years would not be nearly enough time to create the two stars.

Small stars don't go supernova, and the large stars that do, are usually the shortest lived. A couple of billion years is probably plenty of time.

Tens of millions of years,, bystander... Its better to burn out than to fade away.. They use there fuel up very fast...

Mark

Given the right combination of Free Hydrogen (which existed in abundance13 billion years ago) , Gravity and Time, A star could form over the course of just 100my. The Supermassive Stars of early times fused their supply of hydrogen quickly as they burned very hot. They had significantly shorter life cycles so could form in 100my and die in 2by

neufer wrote:

mark swain wrote:I think the heading to this topic also needs to be revised? >>>>Agre<<<< of universe need revision again?

http://www.jhuapl.com/newscenter/pressreleases/1998/russ.asp wrote:
<<The Active Geophysical Rocket Experiment (AGRE) is a joint Russian/USA project whose objective is to investigate the dynamics of a plasma jet in space and attendant phenomena in the magnetosphere, ionosphere and atmosphere of the Earth. This project also includes a laboratory experiment designed to simulate the AGRE experiment. The results of the laboratory simulation show the important role of field-aligned current generation associated with plasma jet injections transverse to the magnetic field. It is found that field-aligned currents have an influence on the plasma jet dynamics, ambient ionosphere, and atmosphere.>>

How priviledged that I can be right when I am wrong .. thanks to Neuf.

mark swain wrote:http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 1110j.html

Maybe they live short lives, maybe they don't, that's all guesswork .. and how long do they take to form? I think the age of the universe could easily be 10 times what the 13.7 estimate is. The consensus age has doubled in the past couple of decades, if I remember those estimates correctly. These constant revisions are just another reason for shaking our minds free of the 'theories are facts' mentality .. except my anti-gravity bubbles of course.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Maybe they live short lives, maybe they don't, that's all guesswork ..

No, it's not guesswork at all, and your saying so just reveals (again) how little you actually understand about how science works.

aristarchusinexile wrote:With 11 billion year old supernovae it seems to me that the estimated 13.7 billion year age of the universe is a megaerror as huge as labelling me a Troll.

What's the problem? There were entire galaxies in existence two billion years after the Big Bang. Large stars form and go supernova in just a few tens of millions of years. By 11 billion years ago there would have been vast numbers of supernovas that already happened. All of this is completely consistent with the current understanding of the Universe and its age.

G'day Chris

You said

What's the problem? There were entire galaxies in existence two billion years after the Big Bang. Large stars form and go supernova in just a few tens of millions of years. By 11 billion years ago there would have been vast numbers of supernovas that already happened. All of this is completely consistent with the current understanding of the Universe and its age.

Use science to prove what you say.

and please leave out the ad hoc theories.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4771
The origin of 'Great Walls'

Authors: Sergei Shandarin
(Submitted on 27 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Jan 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: A new semianalytical model that explains the formation and sizes of the 'great walls' - the largest structures observed in the universe is suggested. Although the basis of the model is the Zel'dovich approximation it has been used in a new way very different from the previous studies. Instead of traditional approach that evaluates the nonlinear density field it has been utilized for identification of the regions in Lagrangian space that after the mapping to real or redshift space (depending on the kind of structure is studied) end up in the regions where shell-crossing occurs. The set of these regions in Lagrangian space form the progenitor of the structure and after the mapping it determines the pattern of the structure in real or redshift space. The particle trajectories have crossed in such regions and the mapping is no longer unique there. The progenitor after mapping makes only one stream in the multi-stream flow regions therefore it does not comprise all the mass. Nevertheless, it approximately retains the shape of the structure. The progenitor of the structure in redshift space depends on a few non-Gaussian fields and also it is strongly affected by two anisotropic fields that determine the pattern of great walls as well as their huge sizes. All the fields used in the mappings are derived from the linear potential smoothed at the current scale of nonlinearity which is $R_{nl} = 2.7$ {\hmpc} for the adopted parameters of the \lcdm universe normalized to $\sigma_8 = 0.8$. The model predicts the existence of walls with sizes significantly greater than 500 {\hmpc} that may be found in sufficiently large redshift surveys.

harry wrote:Use science to prove what you say.

Another example that you don't understand how science works.

I don't understand how what some people consider science works, but I understand how Chris's "you don't understand how science works" works. I see the glimmerings of a sense of humour .. either that, Chris, or you're the Big Chief Troll of all Trolls. I vote for the former.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Maybe they live short lives, maybe they don't, that's all guesswork ..

No, it's not guesswork at all, and your saying so just reveals (again) how little you actually understand about how science works.

You're right, it's not guesswork: It's the earth is at the centre of the universe stuff.

Loco wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Maybe they live short lives, maybe they don't, that's all guesswork ..

No, it's not guesswork at all, and your saying so just reveals (again) how little you actually understand about how science works.

You're right, it's not guesswork: It's the earth is at the centre of the universe stuff.

The earth is definitely not at the centre of the universe, Loco .. at least, maybe not, although, it could be, in a roundabout way, because science is full of surprises.

Serious heads on now ,,, Harry from oZZZZ said a sentence in a previous post which made me go looking..

And i found, what i think, what harry has been talking about. If its on the Net,, I will find it.

You will need a comfy chair for this,, it goes on a bit.

I will coment after everybody else ... Interesting read harry... thx.... http://cseligman.com/text/galaxies/universe.htm

Mark

mark swain wrote:Serious heads on now ,,, Harry from oZZZZ said a sentence in a previous post which made me go looking..

And i found, what i think, what harry has been talking about. If its on the Net,, I will find it.

You will need a comfy chair for this,, it goes on a bit.

I will coment after everybody else ... Interesting read harry... thx.... http://cseligman.com/text/galaxies/universe.htm

Mark

The article recognizes that the Dark stuff may or may not be real. I read recently that Plasma accounts for (I think it was 98 percent of matter in the universe). Is this anywhere near true or false?

Guys,

Where ever you are in the univers you will always be at the center of the univers. Dont you think?

G'day from the land of ozzzz

I just want to see people thinking laterally for themselves and not floating down mainstream without a paddle.

Test and question the waters and if someone tells you something, ask for the evidence and not a ad hoc idea that has no foundations.

These papers are very informative and science sound.

In a non-expanding universe, a galaxies physical size is proportional to its angular size times the redshift. the galaxy sizes are almost exactly the same at high redshift as at the present time.
The age of stars is related to the phases that it undergoes. Sometimes the seeds of these stars are ejected from so called black hole jets, they enter the envelope of the galaxy and take part in the evolution form of the galaxy. The stars life is than controlled by its phases and the merges that it undergoes until it is pulled into the centre of the galaxy. During its journey it may undergo compaction and merger and grow larger resulting in massive condensed matter that can become thousands of Sun masses. APOD has images of the SWARM of black holes around the centre.

APOD: 2006 July 29 - The Swarm
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060729.html

Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse
Authors: Pieter van Dokkum, Marin Franx, Mariska Kriek, Bradford Holden, Garth Illingworth, Daniel Magee, Rychard Bouwens, Danilo Marchesini, Ryan Quadri, Greg Rudnick, Edward Taylor, Sune Toft
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4094v1

The evolution of the morphological scale of early-type galaxies since z=2
Authors: P. Saracco, M. Longhetti, S. Andreon, A. Mignano (INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2269v1

The Age of Cluster Galaxies from Continuum Colors
Authors: K. Rakos (UVienna), J. Schombert (UOregon), A. Odell (NAU)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3665v1

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzz

I just want to see people thinking laterally for themselves and not floating down mainstream without a paddle.

Test and question the waters and if someone tells you something, ask for the evidence and not a ad hoc idea that has no foundations.

My humble guess is that for every paper challenging mainstream there's a lot more of mainstream papers, and if so, chris really shouldnt be doing search work for you.

Oh yeah, locking down sputnick topics... I'm sure you can keep posting these papers and/or discuss them in Re:Time thread and alike.