Galaxies are running out of gas: study

Aug 22, 2011
A star-forming region in a nearby galaxy, imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope. Image credit - NASA, ESA, STScI/AURA

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study has shown why the lights are going out in the Universe.

The Universe forms fewer stars than it used to, and a CSIRO study has now shown why - the are running out of gas.

Dr Robert Braun (CSIRO and Space Science) and his colleagues used CSIRO’s Mopra radio telescope near Coonabarabran, NSW, to study far-off galaxies and compare them with nearby ones.

Light (and radio waves) from the distant galaxies has taken time to travel to us, so we see the galaxies as they were between three and five billion years ago.

Galaxies at this stage of the Universe’s life appear to contain considerably more gas than comparable galaxies in today’s Universe, the research team found.

Stars form from clouds of molecular hydrogen. The less molecular hydrogen there is, the fewer stars will form.

The research team’s paper is in press in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Astronomers have known for at least 15 years that the rate of peaked when the Universe was only a few billion years old and has declined steeply ever since.

"Our result helps us understand why the lights are going out," Dr Braun said.

"Star formation has used up most of the available molecular hydrogen gas."

After stars form, they shed gas during various stages of their lives, or in dramatic events such as explosions (supernovae).

This returns some gas to space to contribute to further star formation.

"But most of the original gas—about 70%—remains locked up, having been turned into things such as white dwarfs, neutron stars and planets," Dr Braun said.

"So the molecular gas is used up over time. We find that the decline in the molecular gas is similar to the pattern of decline in star formation, although during the time interval that we have studied, it is declining even more rapidly."

Ultimately, the real problem is the rate at which galaxies are 'refueled' from outside.

Gas falls into galaxies from the space between galaxies, the intergalactic medium. Two-thirds of the gas in the universe is still found in the intergalactic medium and only one third has already been consumed by previous star formation in galaxies, astronomers think.

"The drop-off in both gas availability and star formation seems to have started around the time that Dark Energy took control of the Universe," Dr Braun said.

Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies, but then the effect of Dark Energy took over and the Universe started expanding faster and faster.

This accelerating expansion will have made it increasingly difficult for galaxies to capture the additional gas they need to fuel future generations of star formation, Dr Braun speculates.

The galaxies used for the Mopra study were of a kind called ultra-luminous infra-red galaxies or ULIRGs, chosen because they are known to have large reservoirs of and because they are so bright that there was a complete census of them within the volume of the that the team studied. They ranged in redshift from 0.2 to 0.5 (that is, they had a look-back time of three to five billion years).

Molecular hydrogen is difficult to detect directly, and this study (like many previous studies) used emission from carbon monoxide (CO) as a proxy for the molecular hydrogen. The astronomers observed the emission arising from the CO(1-0) transition: this study is significant because most other studies have had to rely on observing different transition lines for galaxies at different redshifts. This study, however, compared "apples with apples", using CO(1-0) for both the nearby and distant galaxies under study.

Explore further: Quest for extraterrestrial life not over, experts say

Related Stories

Baby booms and birth control in space

Sep 25, 2007

Stars in galaxies are a bit similar to people: during the first phase of their existence they grow rapidly, after which a stellar birth control occurs in most galaxies. Thanks to new observations from Dutch ...

'Teenage'-galaxies booming with star births

Oct 12, 2010

Scientists from the Niels Bohr Institute have been studying distant galaxies, which are among the most active star-forming galaxies in the Universe. They form around 1,000 new stars a year – a 1,000 times ...

New stars from old gas surprise astronomers

Feb 18, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Evidence of star birth within a cloud of primordial gas has given astronomers a glimpse of a previously unknown mode of galaxy formation. The cloud, known as the Leo Ring, appears to lack ...

Growing galaxies gently

Oct 13, 2010

The first galaxies formed before the Universe was less than one billion years old and were much smaller than the giant systems -- including the Milky Way -- that we see today. So somehow the average galaxy ...

Survey Reveals Building Block Process For Biggest Galaxies

Apr 12, 2006

A new study of the universe's most massive galaxy clusters shows how mergers play a critical role in their evolution. Astronomers used the twin Gemini Observatory instruments in Hawaii and Chile, and the Hubble Space Telescope ...

Dwarf galaxy has giant surprise

Jan 12, 2005

Huge gas disk may be similar to stuff of early universe An astronomer studying small irregular galaxies has discovered a remarkable feature in one of them that may provide key clues to understanding how galaxies form and ...

Recommended for you

Quest for extraterrestrial life not over, experts say

7 hours ago

The discovery of an Earth-sized planet in the "habitable" zone of a distant star, though exciting, is still a long way from pointing to the existence of extraterrestrial life, experts said Friday. ...

Continents may be a key feature of Super-Earths

11 hours ago

Huge Earth-like planets that have both continents and oceans may be better at harboring extraterrestrial life than those that are water-only worlds. A new study gives hope for the possibility that many super-Earth ...

Exoplanets soon to gleam in the eye of NESSI

14 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The New Mexico Exoplanet Spectroscopic Survey Instrument (NESSI) will soon get its first "taste" of exoplanets, helping astronomers decipher their chemical composition. Exoplanets are planets ...

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hard2grep
3.5 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
Wouldn't it be great to use a star to communicate with other civilizations via solar flare? Just like a small transistor can change a large current with a small one, we could use the solar seasons and a little finesse to send signals that can be easily heard by other civilizations (RF signals are too weak to pass through interstellar space over inverse square distances.)We may not have the amount of power output as a whole to do this yet, but that tells us a lot about what to expect from other civilizations. Stars are the lighthouses of the universe.
hard2grep
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2011
X-rays would be an excellent candidate just for the simple fact that they can go through interstellar gas, and be filtered for analysis. I could also see large clouds of charged interstellar gas used in similar fashion. Whatever the right frequency, I think this is the best way to get attention; or listen...
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2011
Galaxies are running out of gas


No.

Galaxies continue to generate more gas and the universe expands faster because the driving force is:

a.) Neutron repulsion [1]
b.) Causing neutron emission, and
c.) Free neutrons decay into H-atoms,
d.) With V(finial)/V(initial) ~1,000,000,000,000,000 [2].

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
eachus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2011
How did this paper get past the referees? Carbon monoxide may be a good proxy for molecular hydrogen in galaxies, but it is assuming a lot to assume that primordial gas (created shortly after the big bang) contains the same amount of CO as gas in galaxies. The galactic gas should contain more carbon and oxygen due to supernova.
jsdarkdestruction
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2011
nonsense oliver. Give it up already, your idea(and your life) are failures.
aroc91
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2011
nonsense oliver. Give it up already, your idea(and your life) are failures.


It's more legitimate than whatever theory you have. I don't think you're in a position to debunk neutron repulsion. Come back when you have your PhD and similar qualifications and then people might listen to what you have to say.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2011
Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies

So if gravity dominated, why didn't the universe collapse back into the singularity that it supposedly came from? What was counter-acting that force to the extend that the universe continued to expand? Then why did the Dark-energy suddenly kick in ? What caused it to arise in the first place?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2011
Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies

So if gravity dominated, why didn't the universe collapse back into the singularity that it supposedly came from? What was counter-acting that force to the extend that the universe continued to expand? Then why did the Dark-energy suddenly kick in ? What caused it to arise in the first place?
Kevin, just so you know, in science you dont ask questions like these thinking you already know the answer. Not if you actually want to FIND the answer, that is.

If your god was there then finding the answers to questions such as these would tend to reveal him. Sadly, all the answers science has uncovered so far seem to lead directly away from the god you so cherish. Too bad.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2011
"Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies"

Just to answer that question, it wasn't a matter of gravity "dominating" the universe, it's simply that during that epoch gravitational attraction was more powerful than dark energy, and the RATE of expansion was slowing (i.e, not speeding up, reduction in acceleration). Yet the universe itself was still expanding.

Further details of this are available in relation to distant supernova studies, our "standard candles" (we think).
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2011
duh.h.h.h.h
jsdarkdestruction
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2011
nonsense oliver. Give it up already, your idea(and your life) are failures.


It's more legitimate than whatever theory you have. I don't think you're in a position to debunk neutron repulsion. Come back when you have your PhD and similar qualifications and then people might listen to what you have to say.

oliver has exactly 0 training in this field. if you think his work is credible it says alot about yours.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2011
@omatumr - You've posted your links on here quite a bit, and I must admit I've generally avoided them. However I just had a quick read through, and it's pretty intriguing stuff actually.

To be honest I'm still trying to get to grips with QCD, and I can't imagine being able to comment on this for or against without being a QCD expert (or an astrophysicist I guess).

Which unfortunately leads me to having to take your ideas like I take any physics idea that I don't understand yet, and put it to the side for now.

Anyway, fun theory regardless.
Pete1983
4.8 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
@jsdarkdestruction - Just to clarify in advance... I'm not supporting omatumr's theory, nor am I against it, I just wanted to say it was fun to read through, and even if it is wrong for whatever reason, it's still interesting to speculate on...
jsdarkdestruction
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2011
yeah, at first. but then when oliver attacks you for asking him to explain things that dont make alot of sense and then provides the same links he did the first time that didnt explain what you are asking it takes the fun out of it. Then you see his climate change world conspiracy theory repeatdly spammed and that he molested all his children and is a convicted sex offender you really grow to dislike the man. He belongs in prison or a coffin for what he did. Can you imagine how his children all felt? the man is a monster
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2011
@omatumr - You've posted your links on here quite a bit, and I must admit I've generally avoided them. However I just had a quick read through, and it's pretty intriguing stuff actually.

Which unfortunately leads me to having to take your ideas like I take any physics idea that I don't understand yet, and put it to the side for now.

Anyway, fun theory regardless.


Thanks, Pete1983. It is wise to admit what we do not know.

Professor Paul K. Kuroda was my graduate research advisor in chemistry.

www.omatumr.com/a...aphy.pdf

www.omatumr.com/a...itic.pdf

Professor John H. Reynolds was my post-doctoral research advisor in physics.

www.nap.edu/html/...olds.pdf

All is well,
Oliver

Lao Tzu: "To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."
InterestedAmateur
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2011
isdarkdestruction
I've reported you for posting abusive comments. I'm posting this is so you know who reported you to prevent personal attacks on all and sundry. You might want to re-read what you've posted today and consider whether you should be posting to this forum if all you have to contribute is vitriol and abuse!
Pete1983
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2011
@jsdarkdestruction - As much as Oliver may indeed be a horrible person for the reasons you suggest, I tend to view humans in a more meme-theory sense. I.e - we are the products of our experiences... and yeah conciousness is probably just a scam, so I don't really blame people for anything as such, I blame the system within which we live (which are pretty screwed up). Purchase any luxury and you are, in a way, supporting child labour. It's all screwed up. Basically I'm saying I've given up on any theory of morality and judgement, because they simply don't make sense.

That being said I'm not exactly going around making friends with child-molesters! But in this case, it's an internet discussion, I can't really make any character judgements on here. Also it's physics/maths, they make no judgements.

Anyway, @Oliver - It's not so much wise to admit we do not know, as just obvious I think! We only woke up to science really in the last few hundred years. We know NOTHING, pretty much.
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2011
Anyway, @Oliver - It's not so much wise to admit we do not know, as just obvious I think! We only woke up to science really in the last few hundred years. We know NOTHING, pretty much.


I agree. Here's our choice:

a.) Enjoy a life of continuous discovery, by admitting that you do not know, or

b.) Fool yourself into thinking that you know and live a miserable life, learning nothing new and telling others that they are not as smart as you think you are.

Only a complete fool would choose b.)

With kind regards,
Oliver
Pete1983
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2011
@omatumr - Socrates was just fantastic wasn't he? I still remember even opening Plato for this first time... Simply amazing.

"I know that I know nothing"

I can't help but get the impression that the world would be a much better place if only people read more of the classics.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2011
isdarkdestruction
I've reported you for posting abusive comments. I'm posting this is so you know who reported you to prevent personal attacks on all and sundry. You might want to re-read what you've posted today and consider whether you should be posting to this forum if all you have to contribute is vitriol and abuse!

You simply dont understand the full situation. I've not lied or said anything that cant be found by looking online. Do some research into oliver and his constant attacks of modern science as a huge global conspiracy thats a bunch of liars when he lied and pretended to be a decent human while molesting his own children and lying and conspiring to stop information to get out(the info of him molesting his children.) Also, I dont really care what others think on this, i believe its for the good of society i reveal olivers lies and disgusting past and im not going to stop. Sorry
Pete1983
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
@jsdarkdestruction - I'm not going to comment on a lot of what you are saying there js, however Oliver appears to be quite reserved in his suggestion.

I've seen many people on physorg go on and on about a global conspiracy by scientists to not let anyone know that the big bang didn't really happen and it was a fairy or something, so I'm well aware of what you mean when you say this. However Oliver doesn't seem to just out and attack anything, he just quietly keeps uploading his pdfs, and thats about it. It's not THAT horrible.

As far as the stuff you're talking about in relation to his personal character, I simply do not care. He is American, and I've never met a sane American. To say he's evil and out of his mind just means he is American, as all Americans seem to worship the god of money, which makes them all quite nuts. Not as nuts as people who believe in God, but pretty close.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2011
please read all of olivers posts like i have and tell me if you feel the same still. lol, but you did miss my point a bit. Oliver is attacking other scientists credibility and integrity calling them liars and frauds and all in on a global conspiracy and I point out that oliver lived a lie for his whole life read this.
Dr. Oliver Manuel arrested for multiple counts of rape and sodomy of his children
By Michele Martin on 8/30/06 Share Facebook Twitter del.icio.us

The allegations that are being prosecuted came from four of Manuels children. Sharon Manuel, 50, his adopted daughter, alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 6 to 14 years old. Oliver Manuel Jr., 43, his biological son, alleged that the abuse took place from the time he was 11 to 17 years old. James Rosenburg, 34, his stepson, alleged the abuse took place from the time he was 7 to 17 years old. Sirikka Llohoefner, 27, his biological daughter alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 5 to 11 years old
jsdarkdestruction
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
his other daughter killed herself. its a miracle the rest of his children have not.
I'll give it to oliver that ever since ethel red finally started showing olivers theories many flaws which oliver refused to discuss other than repeat the same stuff that he just said over and over again he has not attacked too many people over actual science and has been going off in rants on the global conspiracy theory of his.
Pete1983
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
Hmm.... I guess I can't stop thinking of Manuel as a polite british butler... Because of course all british butlers are called either Manuel or Jeeves.

Anyway I don't know what to make of these allegations of yours js. I can't find any reference online to them beyond google references to sites that don't respond...

Either way, it does not matter sir! Let it go. Oliver is clearly going to be around for a while, my searching has shown he's been at this for 7 years or so, and I don't think you're going to change his mind anytime soon.

Let it go and go read the article about the beer yeast... and then go have a beer. Thats what I'm going to do.
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2011
I don't think you're in a position to debunk neutron repulsion.
Anyone can be in that position as Oliver is not in a position to support neutron repulsion. There is NO evidence whatsoever supporting Oliver's claim. The ONLY thing he has is ONE table that fits the Pauli Exclusion Principle and frequent request for anything that distinguish neutron repulsion from the PEP is met with evasion or stonewalling.

Anytime Oliver wants to start answering the questions he pretends don't exist then he will have begun to behave like a real scientist instead of a spamming crank.

Please keep in mind that Oliver has never even taken one astronomy class yet he attacks astronomers frequently. He has no more education on QM than I do and less on astronomy. He is not some god just because he has PhD behind his name. He has to have actual evidence and he doesn't. Read his papers. I have.

Then note that he mostly cites himself and none of the other people he cites agree with him.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2011
Professor Paul K. Kuroda was my graduate research advisor in chemistry.
And he never backed Oliver.

Professor John H. Reynolds was my post-doctoral research advisor in physics.
And he never backed Oliver.

NO physicist or astronomer has backed Oliver. Not even the people he cites in his papers. The evidence does not back Oliver.

a.) Enjoy a life of continuous discovery, by admitting that you do not know, or
So when are you going to do that in regards to the questions I keep asking. I have even suggested that you do so if you can't produce any evidence. Instead you pretend the questions weren't asked.

Only a complete fool would choose b.)
However that was a false dichotomy since there are many other options. Only a complete ass would those two were the only options for going through life.

Ethelred
Pete1983
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
@Ethelred - ah cmon, that last one wasn't so bad. Admitting you do not know something is a GOOD thing, and thats what we were discussing. There was nothing more to it...

Anyway, I get it, you guys are obviously very sick of dealing with Oliver, and thats fine, but just don't get too caught up in it. The internet is a playground, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
jsdarkdestruction
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2011
google oliver k. manuel arrested, the site of the university he used to have emeritus status at has a good summary of it. if you want to see it for yourself still
Robert_Wells
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Up until that time, gravity dominated the Universe, so the gas was naturally pulled in to galaxies

So if gravity dominated, why didn't the universe collapse back into the singularity that it supposedly came from? What was counter-acting that force to the extend that the universe continued to expand? Then why did the Dark-energy suddenly kick in ? What caused it to arise in the first place?


kevin, give it up already. so annoyed at reading your posts...go find another site to troll, errr wait, im sure your covering all the popular sites that mash w your views, as a matter of fact is that you i argue with on natgeo all the time? pfft. if its not you im sure its one of your creationist buddies...you all troll out and cover a site then report back to the head toolbag about your days rants and raves.

mission accomplished.

ironically, sending out about the same message as George W sent when he stood under that banner back in what was it '03?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2011
Anyway I don't know what to make of these allegations of yours js.
I read the results of the court case. He plead guilty to the one count that was not past the statute of limitations.

Barakn posted the first information about this on this web site. I followed up because I am not going to take one persons word.

https://www.court...seNumber

Case number
08BA-CR00444

Sorry but I can't get direct link to the case. You can use the case number in the search. Then click on the case number since it does not take you directly to the case.

Description: Attmpt-Sodomy { Felony C RSMo: 566.060/564.011 }

Disposition: Guilty Plea - 07/24/2008

IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE SUSPENDED AND DEFT. PLACED ON 5 YEARS SUPERVISED PROBATION ON CONDITIONS (SEE DOCKET ENTRY)

The Docket Entries tab has the most information

More
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2011
Megan's Law page
http://www.mshp.d...leName=K


No it does not make his science invalid. The lack of supporting evidence does that. It does make him an unreliable source of uncorroborated information. Most of what he posts is uncorroborated and he really does evade relevant questions.

Admitting you do not know something is a GOOD thing,
Did I leave out an important word again?

Nope.

He has NOT done that. Only one single time in the two years I have been asking him relevant questions has he admitted that he couldn't answer whatever it was. Just once. Don't remember what it was. I have asked a LOT of questions since and mostly he pretends they are invisible. Or reposts the papers that are in question.

Ethelred
rwinners
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
Not enough information. We 'think' we see all galaxies, but then again, we know we don't. We think we see galaxies that are at distances of up to xxx light years, but we don't have a clue as to whether we are correct.
vidar_lund
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2011
Another heated exchange about Oliver. Personally I wouldn't touch him with a stick but I'm not a police man. However, I did read some of his 'papers' and they are kindergarten level at best. He drones on about how we need to accept that we don't know the details of this world but somehow this 'wisdom' only extends to his opponents. Oliver himself ferociously defends his ideas no matter how ridiculous they are, not much humility on his behalf.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2011
We 'think' we see all galaxies, but then again, we know we don't.
We see galaxies and stars and other things. Would you care to make that a bit more clear?

. We think we see galaxies that are at distances of up to xxx light years, but we don't have a clue as to whether we are correct.
Actually we do. We have multiple standard candles for checking distances. Not just one. We don't know PERFECTLY the distances but we sure do have ample evidence to say that the distances to the nearest galaxies is reasonably accurate. The farther galaxies that have only been checked by their red shift is more iffy but the error range isn't so bad that we should pretend that we don't have a clue when we most certainly do. So far supernova evidence supports the redshift evidence to a reasonable degree.

If you want to claim that we don't know shit you had better be able show why you think that. Otherwise you haven't a leg to stand on.

Ethelred
T2Nav
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2011
Jsdarkdestruction, Mr. Manuel is here to discuss the science. Let's join him and stick to the topic okay? I too am starting to report your attacks on him as inappropriate for this site. If you could find a grown-up to help you type it, I would like to see your opinion on any of the subjects actually brought up by the articles. Mr. Manuel's physics ideas are fair game, but personal issues outside of the science arena this web site serves are not.
yyz
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2011
"Jsdarkdestruction, Mr. Manuel is here to discuss the science...."

Is he really? Please point to the relevant work on neutron repulsion that is not from Oliver (and more of his self-referential, independently-uncorroborated papers). Ethelred, barakn, jsdd, myself and others have tried numerous times to discuss *science* with Oliver.

In reply, we get rants about Gore, China, Eisenhower, international conspiracies and coverups and the IPCC-climategate "debacle" instead (and more useless, spammed links to his papers). You want to talk science with Oliver, be my guest. It'll be a one-sided conversation for sure.
yyz
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2011
Yes Oliver, you can downrank my legitimate complaint, but you can't answer simple questions put to you multiple times by multiple people here at PhysOrg. You fool no one but yourself......and maybe your pet worshipper Kio. Wanna discuss *real* non-Oliver backed science? I'm ready any time.

[Where's that Sag A* SED curve, after all? And why is the sky dark at night?]

*******************crickets*******************
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2011
you can't answer simple questions put to you multiple times by multiple people here at PhysOrg.

I'm ready any time.


Great!

1. Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists,
2. Study the experimental data reported there, and
3. Decide if you are capable of learning.

You can then answer yourself.

1. www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf

2. www.springerlink....ak3lyrc/

3. www.springerlink....6685079/

4. www.omatumr.com/a...2002.pdf

5. http://arxiv.org/...410717v1

6. www.omatumr.com/a...dity.pdf

etc, etc.

8. http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2011
"Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists......"

Oliver, thank you for the extensive list of papers and monographs you have coauthored over time supporting your NR notion. Do you have links to *independent* research papers (without your name affixed) by co-authors Bolan, Katragada, Insall, Zhomg, Miller, Friber & Ninham that explicitly back up your NR assertions?

[Study that last question carefully, and decide if you are capable of learning you are (nearly) alone in your crankery]

Where is the *independent* confirmation of NR, galaxy 'fragmentation', pulsar-sun, etc. (and not that lone paper by Toth again, seen it. Ethelred rightly rags you on it on occasion).
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2011
Do you doubt the experimental data?

Do you have a better explanation?

Are you capable of learning?

As stated earlier:

1. Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists,
2. Study the experimental data reported there, and
3. Decide if you are capable of learning.
Cave_Man
not rated yet Aug 27, 2011
Isn't the best method for measuring gravity still an almost frictionless ball whose weight is accurately defined falling a vacuum?

The gravity from out supermassive black hole (galactic center) is supposedly pressed into a giant spinning pancake because of the speed the black hole is spinning and its huge mass. So what kind of distortions to time and space does flat disc of gravity cause?
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2011
"Do you doubt the experimental data?"

Yes, yes I do doubt the experimental data. Why are there no independent confirmations of your findings? These are not complicated experiments. There should be dozens if not hundreds of confirmatory experiments, yet you can not link ONE independent example of neutron repulsion in the literature. Not one. Only you and your collaborators (and no collaborator on their own) on the aforementioned papers assert NR exists and is not a manifestation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

There is no independent corroboration of your NR hypothesis. Why is that? Some conspiracy I guess.
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2011
Do you doubt the experimental data?

Do you have a better explanation?

Are you capable of learning?

As stated earlier:

1. Read papers reviewed by nuclear and space scientists,
2. Study the experimental data reported there, and
3. Decide if you are capable of learning.

your data doesnt prove a supermassive neutron star is in the center of our galaxy. it proves nothing other than the pauli exclusion principle. you've closed your mind a long time ago oliver, the rest of your post is horse shit. i do have a better explanation, but you wouldnt learn anything from it anyway.
jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2011
Jsdarkdestruction, Mr. Manuel is here to discuss the science. Let's join him and stick to the topic okay? I too am starting to report your attacks on him as inappropriate for this site. If you could find a grown-up to help you type it, I would like to see your opinion on any of the subjects actually brought up by the articles. Mr. Manuel's physics ideas are fair game, but personal issues outside of the science arena this web site serves are not.

have you actually read his posts? 99% go on about some global conspiracy....not real science. as for your attack on me not being an adult. Whatever, doesnt bother me what you think.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2011
"Do you doubt the experimental data?"

Yes, yes I do doubt the experimental data.


If you actually read any the papers in detail, you would know that I did not personally generate all of the data. In fact, for the most controversial conclusions, . . .

I routinely used the best available data from the best laboratories.

a.) From the University of Chicago

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

b.) From Brookhaven National Laboratory

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

c.) From Mainz and Cal-tech

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

d.) From Bern, UC-Berkeley, Univ. Minnesota

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

e.) From the $1,000,000,000 Galileo Probe into Jupiter

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2011
"I routinely used the best available data from the best laboratories."

I don't question your source of data(for the most part). I question why no other independent, corroborating research exists that backs up your claims. Why no independent replication of your findings using identical data sets? That's what makes no sense.

Independent corroboration. The lack of it speaks volumes.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 28, 2011
Sorry, I do not think I can help you.

I prepared these documents for todays ACS Webinar: Critical Look at Global Warming Data: Wickedly Complex System Called Climate.

http://dl.dropbox...inar.doc

http://dl.dropbox...inar.pdf

I have not yet been allowed to speak, but other critics of AGW are included in the program.

Conclusion: "Group think" consensus science is now waning. You may see this if change in attitude toward both AGW and SSM models.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2011
I question his sources of data. Let's examine just one, the Galileo probe's Xenon data. In January 1998 Dan Goldin released preliminary data due in part to pressure from Oliver. This data showed a higher than solar Xe-136 to Xe-134 ratio. Oliver took this as evidence of a differentiated precursor star and non-mixed supernova, though despite repeated questions from me and others, he has offered no reason why this wouldn't support Xe from multiple sources. This was by no means the last word on that data. Oliver, for his own peculiar reasons, would be the last to admit that a rich scientific discussion of the data and its method of collection has transpired since 1998.

One of the most important recent papers was Mahaffy, P.R., H. B. Niemann, A. Alpert, S. K.Atreya, J. Demick, T. M. Donahue, D. N. Harpold, and T. C. Owen, Noble Gas Abundance and Isotope Ratios in the Atmosphere of Jupiter from the Galileo Probe Mass Spectrometer, JGR Planets 105, 15061 - 15071 (2000).
barakn
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2011
The need for this paper was obvious. The FU (flight unit) mass spectrometer and associated systems were pre-calibrated using pressures, temperatures, and gas mixtures that were expected to be found on (in) Jupiter. If we had known exactly what to expect there would have been no reason to send a probe, and of course things didn't go exactly as expected. The parachute deployed a minute later than expected (luckily, as it had been miss-wired and the accelerometer was likely upside down). The Jovian atmosphere proved to be more efficient at moving thermal energy to/from the thermal enrichment cells than expected, resulting in greater-than-expected temperature swings during noble gas entrapment.

With this in mind, Mahaffy et al used EUs (engineering units) almost identical in design to the FU and recalibrated using the actual temperature and pressure profile experienced by the FU during Jupiter descent, as well as using gas mixtures closer to actual Jovian composition.
barakn
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2011
When reanalyzing the probe data, The Xe ratios came out to be the same as solar, albeit with large error bars. I pointed this out to Oliver, and suggested he critique the paper. His only response was to conclude that the Goldin data must be superior because it had smaller error bars. His argument has no legs to stand on. First of all, the new evaluation includes data that was not available from the original FU calibration, so one should not expect the same error. Secondly, ignoring possible sources of error is a bad thing, not a good thing. If anything, the Mahaffy data is a more honest and realistic look at the quality of data possible from the Galileo probe's mass spec. My conversation with Oliver deteriorated at that point. He started questioning my own credentials, which was an argumentum ad hominem considering that I was pointing out relevant literature that I myself was not an author of. Still waiting for an honest critique....
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2011
@barakn,

Thanks for the additional info wrt the Galileo data Oliver refers to frequently in his posts. I remember some of your earlier 'discussion' with a recalcitrant and evasive Oliver but I could not remember the details of the conversation. Again, thank you for the specific references on the Galileo mass spec data, and I daresay Oliver would remain mum on the matter, especially as it pertains to his isotopic Jupiter claims.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2011
Conclusion: "Group think" consensus science is now waning.

Consensus science? As opposed to random cranks making shit up with no critical support science? Well may you wish for the scientific method to be waning, given your MO.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2011
When reanalyzing the probe data, . . .


A. In 1983 we predicted [1] the Galileo probe would find excess Xe-136 in Jupiter's He-rich atmosphere.

B. In 1995 the Galileo probe entered Jupiter's Jupiter's He-rich atmosphere and observed excess Xe-136. But the data were hidden.

C. In 1996 I attended the Lunar Science Conference and asked for the data. I was told the data was "normal" and confirmed the SSM. That was untrue.

D. In 1998 I asked Dr. Dan Goldin for the data. He released it immediately and said the data belonged to the American people [2] !

E. H and He isotope data also falsify the SSM [3]

References:

1. "Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)

http://www.omatum...nces.pdf

2. Dr. Dan Goldin's response

www.youtube.com/w...IFmZpFco

3. "Abundances of Hydrogen and Helium Isotopes in Jupiter"

www.omatumr.com/a...ietz.pdf
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2011
C. In 1996 I attended the Lunar Science Conference and asked for the data. I was told the data was "normal" and confirmed the SSM. THAT WAS UNRRUE!
why's that? because it goes against your theory? Oliver, you cling to your beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2011
The fact is that NASA scientists hid experimental data from the Galileo probe into Jupiter.

Data that cost American taxpayers $1,000,000,000 were hidden like personal property and misrepresented in meetings.

Why?

Maybe barakn knew the data would undercut claims that Earth's heat source is a stable H-fusion reactor.

I had not yet heard the AGW propaganda story in 1983, when we showed that Apollo data undercuts the SSM dogma.

When the Galileo mission reached Jupiter twelve years later, we still had not heard the AGW propaganda story.

But two expensive space missions that cost over $1,000,000,000 each falsified SSM before we realized that SSM was the cornerstone of the official AGW dogma that emerged in public later.

omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2011
Anyway, I do not blame barakn.

He/she was probably an innocent pawn, misled into believing he/she was doing his/her patriotic duty by hiding experimental data that would disprove the Standard Solar Model.

I doubt if he/she knew that SSM was the cornerstone of the AGW scam that would appear later.

See news reports on yesterday's ACS meeting on climate change:

http://judithcurr...part-ii/
yyz
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2011
"In 1998 I asked Dr. Dan Goldin for the data. He released it immediately...."

So this data has been available to the public for over a decade, and yet you are the only qualified scientist who has looked at this data and concluded that this is evidence the Sun has a pulsar at its' nucleus?

No *independent* published research exists that uses this 1998 Galileo data to show that the sun is really a pulsar surrounded by a semi-rigid shell of iron-bearing material; or do you have an independent reference discussing the Galileo data that includes your pulsar-sun theory?

@barakn,

"Still waiting for an honest critique...."

Looks like its going to be a long wait. No mention of the scientific critique you offered on the Galileo mass spec results(again). Just more conspiracy theories and politics. And now you're being labeled an agent of disinformation, along with Ethelred, and anyone else who doesn't see the NR "light".

....and denial is a river in Egypt.....

jsdarkdestruction
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2011
oh yeah oliver its some conspiracy to hide data. of course. thats such nonsense, do you even bother to think before you talk/type anymore or was it because you are in denial?(SOUNDS LIKE A RELIGION TO ME, as ive heard you say about "big bang theory multiple times). Get real man, its getting pathetic.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2011
Sure do wish I had all that all that money the Crank thinks I was paid.

And that IS Cranking to accuse your opponents of being paid to oppose you. It is also what you do when you don't have a real answer to the very relevant questions.

Ethelred
barakn
4 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2011
I gave him over a month to respond. Real scientists check each other's work by perusing each other's papers for flaws and by independently repeating experiments. Back when he was a legitimate scientist, his specialty was mass spectrometry, and so if anyone was qualified to re-analyze data from Galileo's mass spectrometer or calibrate leftover engineering-unit mass specs, it was him. But did he? He certainly has not offered an in-depth critique of the Mahaffy paper, but did he even bother to read it and spend a minimal amount of energy looking for obvious problems like math errors? Did Oliver run the sort of mathematical analysis that would expose data manipulation (much like the sort of inquiries that exposed some teachers changing answers on their students' standardized tests to get better scores)? No, he hasn't.
barakn
4 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2011
The fact that Oliver has not made the effort and has instead decided to slander thousands of scientists shows how little interest he has in the truth. His true interest is in propping up his circus tent of a theory, despite lost tent pegs, frayed ropes, snapped poles, a howling gale, despite how the few clowns, carneys, elephants and freaks willing to help him always pull in the wrong direction.

More news stories

Impact glass stores biodata for millions of years

(Phys.org) —Bits of plant life encapsulated in molten glass by asteroid and comet impacts millions of years ago give geologists information about climate and life forms on the ancient Earth. Scientists ...

Researchers successfully clone adult human stem cells

(Phys.org) —An international team of researchers, led by Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology, has announced that they have performed the first successful cloning of adult human skin cells into stem ...