The star that should not exist

*sigh* I find it idiotic that I've been reading articles about cosmologists wondering how the first stars formed when there were so few metal elements, and then, they find a star with very little metals and say that should be impossible.

Look, if you have any confidence in the big bang theory, then you have to assume that star formation came about originally in a metal poor environment and that contradicting star formation models are wrong. So there's you're f%^&ing answer, a metal poor star.

This should be of considerable interest, but I don't understand the confusion - you kind of have to logically expect it if you believe in all the standard theories.

I don't understand how its possible that this star could be almost 13 billion years old, they just assume that because it makes them happy and fits into their narrow view of our universe.

In fact Ive always wondered why, if we can see the big bang right now (or up to 300,000 years after the big bang) then we must be traveling away from that big bang at close to the speed of light otherwise the light would have caught up to us long ago and we would only see whatever is left where the initial big bang occurred and we would also see some weird ghost image of the stuff close to us that passed between us and the big bang while we were still traveling close to the speed of light away from the big bang.

I mean how is it possible that we can even see back that far and dont give me that speed of light bull because you know its a giant leap. Like they keep building bigger telescopes to see back further into the big bang well how can that light enter the receptor yet still be observable later?

I think this article is a little dramatized. Star forming theories in the early universe include mechanisms in which low mass metal free stars can form.

The funny thing to me, is with what little we really DO understand, that they even have the audacity to suggest it shouldn't exist in the 1st place.

It's like, "Really? You don't even understand the REAL fundamentals of these bodies, yet you are going to make the claim they shouldn't exist?"

Screw Science, lets just throw our hands up and say it all should not exist! That's much easier anyways, right? lol

The funny thing to me, is with what little we really DO understand, that they even have the audacity to suggest it shouldn't exist in the 1st place.

It's like, "Really? You don't even understand the REAL fundamentals of these bodies, yet you are going to make the claim they shouldn't exist?"

Screw Science, lets just throw our hands up and say it all should not exist! That's much easier anyways, right? lol

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. Also, just because this article didn't explain something doesn't mean an explaination doesn't exist. I'm sure the astronomers doing this study weren't blown away that they'd found the star, although they probably found it unusual.

We "see" the big bang in two ways: cosmic microwave background radiation and extremely distant stars, both of which only allow us to infer information about the bang. I don't think anyone will claim that we can literally see the big bang, nor will anyone go as far as to say the big bang is, without question, how the universe came into existence

I guess ET had mined it out some time ago.
Puzzle solved :-)

this proves the big bang and all modern theories are incorrect.
this is proof of neutron repulsion, electric universe, 6000 yr old earth, static universe,whatecer tuxfords idols model says....did i miss any?

Figured i'd save the cranks some time. lol

So to get from Helium to Lithium:(current star theory)

3_______4_____7
2He plus 2He = 4Be plus (gamma)
7__________7
4Be plus e- = 3Li plus (neutrino)

Because Calcium has a atom number of 20 it is quite hard to find a equation that goes from Helium to Calcium before it would go to Lithium. It's pretty strange and I would love to read the article when it comes out. Pretty interesting results.

and dont give me that speed of light bull

I wouldn't dream of it. This line seriously made me laugh out loud.

Ive always wondered why, if we can see the big bang right now (or up to 300,000 years after the big bang) then we must be traveling away from that big bang at close to the speed of light otherwise the light would have caught up to us long ago and we would only see whatever is left where the initial big bang occurred
...

To start with, according to Einstein the universe is not 13.7 Gigayears old in absolute terms. It is 13.7 Gyr just in terms of time measured in our reference frame. An observer in a different reference frame may measure it as just 1 year old, even if he is passing near earth at this moment.

Secondly, when you say that we are travelling at "near speed of light from the big bang" you are not taking into account that the space itself is expanding,( as measured by the red shift ), which has moved as to a much bigger distance from "BB remmanents" than our relative speed from them. In that sense we are far from being accelerated to relativistic speeds.

Well, it's certainly an interesting object.

If the star really is that old - as it ought to be, given its mass - then it long predates the formation of the galaxy it's in. It's got to be a long, long way from the ancient star formation zone that gave it birth.

Was it a migrant, ejected from a long-ago galaxy and wandering the void, eventually scooped up by the Milky Way and sent into a regularized orbit?

Could it have brought planets with it on its voyage? Or accumulated some on the way?

In any event, I tend to agree with That Guy's point, if not his annoyed tone. If the star was formed 13 billion years ago, as this one appears to have done, then we shouldn't expect much metallic content. And we should expect that there is a star-formation route in that early hydrogen-helium-lithium environment. Since a method of formation in that environment isn't covered in the current theory of star formation, current theory needs work.

The low lithium level sure is perplexing.

Please correct me

I was under the understanding that the very first stars that should have burned out by now - actaully would look like the one in the article --- right -- H and He in a big ole cloud would condense due to gravity and form a star due to pressure and fusion and all... if that is incorrect -- and heavy elements are still only created by supernova -- then how did any star form period ---

or did i miss something -- I often do

Could it be that this star once had a much greater mass and metal composition and it was sublimed away by GraviMagnetaTronic Space Miners...Female space miners in skin-tight space suits?...Sisters. Hot ones...Wink wink.

the most perplexing thing about cosmology is how frequently they seem to be 'surprised' about a new finding not fitting their theories when in fact, the universe is the biggest mystery of all , almost by definition, it is everything.

we don't even know what's on the bottom of the ocean, and just because we have telescopes doesn't mean we don't know more about what there is to know about the bottom of the ocean, than we know about all there is to know about the universe.....and we know prescious little about the bottom of the ocean.

just because more people might be cosmologists, and we might have more textbooks about the universe and the research on it, doesn't mean the universe isn't still, the biggest mystery still out there. !

There never was a Big Bang; this theory is totally bogus. Our theories of star formation are not proven either. We have much to learn.

the most perplexing thing about cosmology is how frequently they seem to be 'surprised' about a new finding not fitting their theories

The biggest surprise was that a population III (ie, the first gen) star could still be around. Most are hypothesized to be giants of several hundred solar masses which would burn through their fuel in much less than a billion years and then explode to seed the next gen of stars, but the article didn't mention the star's mass. The other surprise is the dearth of lithium in the star's spectra.

1. Hydrogen is element #1, the lightest element.

2. Helium is element #2, the next lightest element.

3. Several studies show that stars sort elements by mass, and the degree of mass fractionation changes over time [1-4].

Therefore, this report is questionable.

1. "Mass-Fractionated Isotopes of Kr and Xe in Solar Wind" (1972)

www.omatumr.com/D...ata1.htm

2. "Trans-iron elements in SEP events", APJ 540, L111L114 (2000)

http://epact2.gsf...0HiZ.pdf

3. "Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture
cross sections", 36th LPSC, 1033 (2005)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...1033.pdf

4. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass"
Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, 1847-1856 (2006)

http://arxiv.org/.../0609509

Oliver K. Manuel

we don't even know what's on the bottom of the ocean, and just because we have telescopes doesn't mean we don't know more about what there is to know about the bottom of the ocean, than we know about all there is to know about the universe.

That comment is hard to follow, but we probably do know more about the cosmos than the bottom of our oceans. That's because the cosmos is more observationally accessible and the cosmological principle greatly simplifies the physical variations (unlike the hard to access micro and macro environments of the deep ocean).

just because more people might be cosmologists, and we might have more textbooks about the universe and the research on it, doesn't mean the universe isn't still, the biggest mystery still out there. !

The origin of the universe and the nature of reality (quantum mechanics) certainly are the biggest mysteries one can think of.

The star's composition doesn't surprise me at all. It no doubt is a first generation star, yes and it does probably pre-date the galaxy which it resides. The fact that it has survived so long is perplexing. First gens were typically short lived monsters. So it didn't form from a cosmic cloud of gas and dust, just what was on hand at the time, e:hydrogen 80% -and helium 20% -. Not such a mystery at all. Hats off to the old spunker

Anyone know how many LY away from us it is? I see stars in Leo, like Regulus clocks in at 77 LY but others at 5000 LY.

I wonder if it could have planets, wouldn't that be a gas. So to speak:)

Its not a star, but a massive H/He chemical rocket built by ET to get as far away from Earth as possible.

Cave_Man:

if we can see the big bang right now then we must be traveling away from that big bang at close to the speed of light otherwise the light would have caught up to us long ago and we would only see whatever is left where the initial big bang occurred

It's not just us; *everything* is traveling away from the Big Bang. The central point of the expansion, however, is not visible in 3-space; it's the center of a hypersphere instead. A common analogy is a loaf of raisin bread that's expanding while baking: any raisin within the loaf "sees" all other raisins as moving away. There is no preferred point, no center, to the expansion.



We *do* see whatever is left, which is the cosmic microwave background radiation that pervades the sky.

I mean how is it possible that we can even see back that far how can that light enter the receptor yet still be observable later?

Not all of the available radiation enters the receptor at once. More of it can be seen, later.

ok first...there is no other elements there...Like they said..it shouldn't exist..MEANING THE BIG BANG IS WRONG...There should be other elements..right..where did the other elements come from it not from the old stars...LOL..Science is just as bad as politics as propaganda goes..people see what they what in numbers...the Zero has way too many values to mean anything and (-1,1) are the only number not quanitive..(real numbers. In the end you'll find that (1) is absilute...and zero is just the lack of something. Something is also quanitifable..means more then one thing can be missing at any give time.. If you don't understand me then research TESLA. It's funny how the U.S. Airforce and the USA in general all seek TESLA researchs...Even Einstein...

ok guys, I'll help you....You need to know where your know how can from, to know where you are going..simple going off einstien is silly..there is a logical pattern that you must fully understand... Research TELSA.. Research your past..Research the evolution of energy..Find it in you to make the logical steps needed. The big bang is wrong. it is not fully understood...or taken all the facts in...Matter came from waves or spiral energy before makeing anything of valume...Then when ever something did it would attract everything else...causeing a massive explotion (ARC). At that time.. simple matter was born. I feel back hole recycle Matter to pure energy. gravity is just the lack of something.may be pure energy..mater pushes away pure energy..Bends it..

the boyancy of matter on pure energy is what we call weight..The less dense something is the less wieght it will have..less pure energy consintrated pushing away then bending pure energy around it..that is what we call valume.. SORRY FOR MY ENGISH..It's not my first lang..I'm trying my best.. THINK OF WATER AND ICE...THAT IS HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS..

the most perplexing thing about cosmology is how frequently they seem to be 'surprised' about a new finding not fitting their theories when in fact, the universe is the biggest mystery of all , almost by definition, it is everything.

That Because they have Faith And not Logical order..It may not be fun..or exciting, but it works.. Logical displacement is key..Energy always displaces other energy in consintrated form..They know to much about physical science and not logic...Plus it's a human thing..everyone wonts to act like its so fun and exciteing...They wouldn't know what to do with them selves with out happy people around them..sad but true..They all will lie, cheat, or steal in order to retain there sence of reality..This come from scientist around the world...It's a truth we all live with. you'll find this in your family, at your work, in your socail group..

In fact Ive always wondered why, if we can see the big bang right now (or up to 300,000 years after the big bang)

Because space expands. Think expansions like a man running away from a stationary source of sound. If he runs fast enough then the sound will reach him at a much later time than if he had stood still. This is why we can still see the remnants from the big bang from all over the place.
(At this point the analogy breaks down because since space expands every point once coincided with the place of the big bang and therefore we do not se the remnants of that event coming from one direction but from all directions)

but the article didn't mention the star's mass.

Right under the image it says:
"It has a mass smaller than that of the Sun"

From the article:
"A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldnt exist because the clouds of material from which they formed could never have condensed"

Some thoughts about how such clouds could have condensed:
Any passing gravitatinoal influence (a galaxy, a black hole or merely a big, wandering star) could create enough of a disturbance in the gas cloud to create regions of high enoug denisty to start collapsing.

Doesn't explain the missing lithium, though. That's a bit of a doozy.

phd your comments are ignorant at best. your level of confidence surprises me when seeing how nonsensical your posts are. you go on believing its a conspiracy and scientists are all lying and hiding data, real scientists will keep pushing forward.

The usual idea for the earliest stars is a super giant. However since they too formed out of clouds I don't see why smaller stars could not have formed during the collapse that created the large ones. Sort of like gas giants do.

It has a mass smaller than that of the Sun

Bet it is a LOT less. It has to be a Red Dwarf to still exist.

and is probably more than 13 billion years old.

That is based on its low metal content.

Doesn't explain the missing lithium, though. That's a bit of a doozy.

That and it has calcium instead.

Several people here think this somehow makes the BB go away. To the contrary I don't see how such a star could exist in an infinitely old universe. Sure can't exist in Oliver's universe. Yet it does and there are more as well.

This is going to be interesting over time.

Ethelred

Are there not large amounts of gas in the universe which have not been cycled through stars? What is to keep an intergalactic cloud of gas from collapsing and creating a star from that primordial gas? That is, do all such stars have to be 13 billion years old?

Doesn't explain the lack of lithium, but perhaps the primordial universe contained less lithium than our models predict.

If stars largely grow from within, and more rapidly in the vicinity of more mass density, such 'young' metal-poor stars would be expected to be more common in star clusters, such as in this case.

http://www.physor...mer.html

This mistake is too assume such stars are old. Again, evidence against the Big Bang fantasy, which is likely supported by the military/intelligence disinformation community. (T.Brown admitted his flying disk patents had been classified in 1952 in his proposal to the Navy.)

I predict these lone metal-poor stars will be found to be more rare. That this star remains smaller than the sun, and still so very old is also a bit difficult to explain? Need a mechanism to explain how this lithium is destroyed over time?

http://www.physor...522.html

It has a mass smaller than that of the Sun

Bet it is a LOT less. It has to be a Red Dwarf to still exist.

Ethelred
Hi Eth, hope that bet is just a beer. It doesn't have to be all that much less. Even at just 0.7 times one stellar mass a star's lifetime increases to around 20 billion years. No need to go to 0.4 Sol mass (red dwarfs).

A star's lifetime=mass/luminosity so for main-sequence stars you can use the formula (%solar mass)/(%solar mass)^3 × 10^10 years to calculate lifetime.

I'm sorry, that formula might not make a lot of sense without more context. Here is a more complete explanation for those interested:

http://www.astron...n/s2.htm

sporadicism-random.blogspot.com

..> maybe it already exploded but we have yet to see the explosion.......distance....yeah , its a factor

I came across this interesting article from a few months ago:
http://www.scienc...ll_shine

The authors posit that 1st gen giant stars might have been born in huge gas clouds that forged several stellar embryos rather than just one.

The infant stars in each cloud were closely spaced and their mutual gravity could kick the lowest mass embryo from the tightly packed group before that infant had a chance to grow into a massive, short lived star.

A few of these ejected, underweight stars could have survived to the present day if they managed to accumulate no more than the equivalent of 80% of the suns mass from their birth cloud.

The paper was criticized for making assumptions about how the early gas clouds behaved and for the length of their simulations, but perhaps given this discovery, they may be on to something.

This ancient star . . . has been found to have the lowest amount of elements heavier than helium of all stars yet studied.

The amount of elements heavier than helium at the top of the stellar atmosphere depends on the level of magnetic activity that separates elements in a star by mass like a plasma diffuser [1].

A 2004 survey of solar-like stars with little or no sunspot activity from magnetic fields protruding through the photosphere concluded:

"We thought we knew how to detect Maunder minimum stars, but we don't . . . our study shows that the vast majority of stars identified as Maunder minimum stars are well above the main sequence, which means they're not sun-like at all, but are either evolved stars or stars rich in metals like iron and nickel" [2].

1. ""The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass"

http://arxiv.org/.../0609509

2. "Was 17th century solar funk a rarity?"

www.berkeley.edu/...er.shtml

re isdarkdestruction and phd interplay re yet another mystery observation....firstly the article is strictly reporting an observation....PhD has an interesting viewpoint which is as useful as all the other viewpoints..more logic to explain what is
may work in some circumstances better than observation as observation allways is based on a limted number of degrees of freedom (visual,aural,etc.)and interpretative instrumentation...Science is an exploration of what is first by observation,then repeat observation using whatever technique is available...The conclusions based on the observation are allways in a state of flux as the same experiment,observation etc will,if there is sufficient interest in the observation be refined overtime..It happens to be the way science works and technology evolves apace..Relax ..its a simple observation

Several people here think this somehow makes the BB go away. To the contrary I don't see how such a star could exist in an infinitely old universe. Sure can't exist in Oliver's universe. Yet it does and there are more as well. - Ethelred

Our infinite universe is cyclic [1].

Everything that exists is exactly as it should be, including you and me [2] riding on the third ball of dirt orbiting the Sun - living between an energetic pulsar and cold outer space.

Reincarnation is even possible in this cyclic universe [1].

In another ~20 Gyr, we may be here again, hopefully better able to live life that we were this time.

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

http://journalofc...102.html

2. "Origin and Evolution of Life", J. Mod. Physics (2011) 587-594

http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

Best wishes on the journey!
Oliver K. Manuel

a crazy conspiracy is not a valuable opinion to add. phd and oliver have no place in science. attacking other scientists and then pretending like they know whats going on while no one else does.

Time will tell.

I suspect that the days of consensus science, and nonsense like yours, are numbered.

Time will tell.

Time will tell.

I suspect that the days of consensus science, and nonsense like yours, are numbered.

Time will tell.

Well said Oliver! Do let us know if you end up doing jail time, won't you?

Reincarnation is even possible in this cyclic universe

Careful Oliver, you might just end up being reincarnated as an abused child. Wouldn't THAT be poetic justic, humm?

Cave Man

In fact Ive always wondered why, if we can see the big bang right now (or up to 300,000 years after the big bang) then we must be traveling away from that big bang at close to the speed of light...

Sigh, facepalm... we're IN the Big Bang dummy, along with everything else.

phd and oliver have no place in science.

Time will show who has been hiding, avoiding or manipulating experimental observations and data since 1971 that would have revealed the

1. Origin [Science 195, 208-209 (1977)];

www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf

2. Composition [Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)];

www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf

3. Source of energy [The APEIRON Journal (2011)] that sustains life, and

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

4. Controls Earths changing climate [Energy & Environ. 20, 131-144 (2009]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

Then we will know who has a place in science !

With kind regards,
Oliver K Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Time will tell who is right and who is remembered for what, you'll be remembered as a child molester. Even if you were right on your crazy theories you can never erase that oliver. i think people who molest children for 40 yrs and lie about it are not the most trustworthy....,.

All the problems the big bang theory has make the majority of cosmologists sound like my wife, no matter how wrong she is she will never admit it and regardless of how much evidence you produce she will simply go off at a tangent onto something irrelevant to avoid facing the truth.
Which poses a question, are all cosmologists really female?

Our infinite universe is cyclic [1].

Nice unsupported assertion.

Everything that exists is exactly as it should be, including you and me

No. It is quit unlike you claim it should be.

living between an energetic pulsar and cold outer space.

Again an assertion totally with evidence to support it. There is no pulsar in the Sun as that would result in a naked Neutron Star and no life in the solar system due to x-ray bombardment.

Reincarnation is even possible in this cyclic universe [1]

Reincarnation is exactly as possible in this Universe as in the one you propose. It requires magic.

In another ~20 Gyr, we may be here again, hopefully better able to live life that we were this time.

No. That also does not fit the evidence. They Universe is NOT contracting.

I suspect that the days of consensus science,

A fantasy and not reality.>>

, and nonsense like yours, are numbered.

Theory unsupported by any evidence that can show it true is nonsense. You have no evidence except that which shows the a sun went bang about 5GY ago and added fresh metals to our Solar System. There is NO evidence to support your claim that OUR sun went bang and no math supports it either.

Ethelred

Interesting. So what changed the lithium into calcium before the stars were born ?

I mean how is it possible that we can even see back that far and dont give me that speed of light bull because you know its a giant leap. Like they keep building bigger telescopes to see back further into the big bang well how can that light enter the receptor yet still be observable late

LOL! Wow I hope you're trolling. Otherwise, you are an idiot.

There was no bigbang, the standard model is wrong, there is no dark matter or dark energy, the universe is not expanding.

Speaking of expansion of the universe

Light moves at 300,000 km per second and moves so much faster than the expansion of the universe.

What makes the light when it comes to expansion limit?

Hazards light out into nothing or becoming light slowed down because the newly can not move outside of the limit of the expansion of the universe is.

I am amazed at some of the wild statements made here. Pushing your agenda has no place in science. I really like the baby star pushed out of the cloud idea, that seems plausible, but we can't just throw out the standard model due to one low metal star.
"Light moves at 300,000 km per second and moves so much faster than the expansion of the universe."
- But in the early expansion the rate was MUCH faster than C, so effectively moving backwards in time relative to everything else, no need to slow down light.

Hmmm...The star that should not exist.

Only because we do not really understand anything about the cosmos. One day.. we will.

I'm pretty sure no one is suggesting that the star cannot actually exist, I would think it obvious to the most simple minded person capable of reading the article that implicit in the statement that the star should not exist is the understanding that it should not exist within the theoretical models predicted by our current understanding of stellar formation and evolution. I mean really don't you people have anything more to contribute than picking apart the language used to describe a thing? perhaps if you are unable to debate the subject matter intelligently attacking semantics is all you have.

Hmmm...The star that should not exist.

Only because we do not really understand anything about the cosmos. One day.. we will.

You are exactly right!

Our Sun is a model for stars that fill the cosmos.

Four decades (1971-2011) of lock-step, consensus "science" directed by those who control government research funds have almost destroyed the world's greatest economic, scientific, democratic system in order to avoid the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation by:

a.) Uniting Nations,
b.) Reducing Nationalism,
c.) Ending the Arms and Space Races,
d.) Making Climate Change our "Common Enemy", and
e.) Adopting the Bilderberg Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun as Earth's stable heat source with absolutely NO influence on climate change.

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

Even basic science disciplines, like cosmology, particle, nuclear and astro- physics, were undercut by the deep roots of the AGW scandal.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

FWIW a free version of the Nature paper is available here: http://www.eso.or...1132.pdf

Several posters here have questioned whether low mass Population III would have formed to begin with (if this star is indeed a representative of this class). Try searching for "low mass population III stars" to find some current research on such objects. Theoretical work over the last decade has uncovered several possible mechanisms for the formation of these early stars.

In theory a primordial 0.8 solar mass Pop III star should still be shining today, but what to look for?

A substantial body of work on low-mass Pop III stars focuses on how such stars may appear in the present day universe and how to discriminate between low mass Pop III stars and peculiar low mass Pop I and Pop II imposters. And for the record, the paper on this star does not ID it as a Pop III object, but it may turn out to be a candidate.

This is so bizarre that I want at least one other independent observation and measurement.

"This is so bizarre that I want at least one other independent observation and measurement."

Oh, I'd expect several more independent observations bluehigh. Besides trying to confirm observed lines and abundances, they'll surely be looking for additional lines/elements. It's the nature of the business.;)

The star that should not exist, . . .

Reflects the sad state of cosmology based on computer models instead of observations.

With kind regards,
Oliver K Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Lets try this 25%Helium and 75%Hydrogen ration in a Farnsworth FUSOR reactor.

NASA recorded and promised to release videos of changes in the Sun from its quietest period in years to the activity marking the beginning of solar cycle 24 !

www.irishweathero...26.html/

The videos may be the demise of the AGW and SSM scams, world leaders, and leaders of the scientific community that ignored empirical facts:

Earths unstable heat source, a pulsar, causes continuous climate change and continuous evolution of life Earth:

http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

World leaders and leaders of the Western scientific community (the US NAS, the UKs RS, and the UNs IPCC) and editors of once-respected research journals (Nature, Science, PRS, PNAS, etc.) failed to condemn evidence of thirty years of data manipulation in Climategate documents and e-mails.

http://joannenova...imeline/

Is it a coincidence that deception and malfeasance in government science grew out-of-sight, like a tumor, since Henry Kissinger met Chairman Mao secretly in 1971 and ended the space race?

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

a.) Weakening our national security,
b.) Undercutting principles of democracy,
c.) Making a mockery of scientific principles,
d.) Destroying confidence in world leaders, and
e.) Producing a Climate-gate record of 30-years of deception.

http://joannenova...imeline/

For more details of deception in science on Professor Curry's climate blog:

http://judithcurr...l-paper/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

So many post are from children I guess. Just because the article says something does not mean that scientist don't know what they are talking about. The article is not bad but it reads a bit like what I find in fox. Scientist baffle by (add what ever someone does not understand) but we lay person know better.

Grow up.

Oliver

Re-posting the exact same paranoid fantasies based entirely on a desire to make reality go away is not helping you. It is simply more evidence that you are a Crank. And we didn't exactly need more since you are the Poster Boy on the site.

So how about you tell us where there is laboratory evidence that unbound neutrons have ever been seen to decay. Test after test of proton decay which should also detect neutron decay has never seen either.

Ethelred

This is so bizarre that I want at least one other independent observation and measurement.

It is an unusual star, the only one currently know with a very low metalicity ([Fe/H]=-5) that has essentially solar-like ratios of other heavy elements to Fe, where the other extremely metal-poor stars were relatively Carbon-rich.

Ultimately this is a discovery paper and the report of the discovery that this star was extremely metal-poor had to be reported first somewhere. The low (undetected, but consistent with a solar-like Fe:C ratio) carbon abundance challenges some existing low-mass star formation theories and this is why the first report appeared in "Nature".

The authors have identified nearly 2900 candidate, low-metal stars and examined 6 finding this one. No doubt they plan to examine more, and with this report, they and others are free to examine this one more as well.

So how about you tell us where there is laboratory evidence that unbound neutrons have ever been seen to decay.

Ethelred

I find it hard to believe you would pose such a question on a physics discussion group.

You could find the answer in any good textbook of physics or chemistry.

Or at any number of web sites:

1. www.particleadven...npe.html

"A neutron (udd) decays to a proton (uud), an electron, and an antineutrino. This is called neutron beta decay. (The term beta ray was used for electrons in nuclear decays because they didn't know they were electrons!)"

2. http://en.wikiped...on_decay

"In nuclear physics, neutron decay may refer to:

a. neutron emission by an atomic nucleus
b. free neutron decay
c. beta decay of a neutron inside an atomic nucleus
d. baryon decay as predicted by grand unified theories"

I find it hard to believe you would pose such a question on a physics discussion group.

Really. I have asked it many times. Of course you have difficulty with reality at all times so it is no surprise that you would say something so at odds with reality.

You could find the answer in any good textbook of physics or chemistry.

No. Not even even in physics book and definitely not in a chemistry book.

"A neutron (udd) decays to a proton (uud), an electron, and an antineutrino. This is called neutron beta decay. (The term beta ray was used for electrons in nuclear decays because they didn't know they were electrons!)"

Which is NOT what I was asking. I am FULLY aware that UNBOUND neutrons decay. I asked about BOUND neutrons.

a. neutron emission by an atomic nucleus

Which isn't actually the decay of a neutron it is the emission of one that will later decay if does not become bound again.>>

b. free neutron decay

Which isn't what I was asking for and you know it. That is a unbound neutron.

c. beta decay of a neutron inside an atomic nucleus

Which only occurs is in atoms with way too many neutrons. So many that a neutron will eventually be unbound. The pressure in a neutron star should prevent that as in that case ALL the neutrons will be right up against many neutrons. The Strong Force will be with them.

d. baryon decay as predicted by grand unified theories

Undetected. And it was that lack of detection that I talking about. The lack of detection is a major problem for those GUTS. None of them fit the evidence at present due to that complete lack of decay.

That is the closest you have come to actually answering though. You have pretended that the question had never been asked for nearly two years now. This however is not an answer it is just another evasion.>>

IF you are right THEN neutrons must be capable of decaying while BOUND or you must prove that neutrons are not bound in a neutron star.

I await the proof. Physical evidence for the first and math will do for the second since there is no way to get at a neutron star.

Ethelred

1. A "free neutron" is an "unbound neutron."
2. A "bound neutron" is part of the nucleus.

Decay occurs in both cases, as explained in the information provided.

You may have a comprehension problem. E.g.,

1. Oliver

So how about you tell us where there is laboratory evidence that unbound neutrons have ever been seen to decay.

Ethelred

After that question was answered, she becomes angrier:

2. Which is NOT what I was asking. I am FULLY aware that UNBOUND neutrons decay. I asked about BOUND neutrons.

You are not at fault.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

oliver, SHOW EVIDENCE BOUND NEUTRONS DECAY! stop ignoring the question or admit you dont know shit. then answer the others etheled has asked. oh wait, you cant. get real oliver, i didnt think you could get any more pathtic but each day you prove me wrong. Ethelred is a guy by th way, he's only told you that 100 tims now. are you that senile and ignorant you cant remember? your dementia is getting wors. please check into a hospital.

1. A "free neutron" is an "unbound neutron."

Yes Oliver. I know that. A neutron in a neutron star is NOT free.

2. A "bound neutron" is part of the nucleus.

A neutron in a neutron star is not free either. AND neutrons in unstable nuclei are not really bound. That is why they decay. The Weak Force is just a higher order version of EM.

You may have a comprehension problem. E.g.,

Or I may understand it better than you. Much more likely considering it has taken you TWO YEARS to reply to the question.

After that question was answered, she becomes angrier:

Gee two errors in one sentence. I am not angry and wasn't. I do not get angry online and ETHELRED is in no way the same as Ethel. Which I have pointed out to you before. I find that people that confuse the two tend to be misogynists.

You are not at fault.

True. Not in error either.

Whereas you can't even get my sex right. Not surprising for a bisexual child abuser.

Ethelred

Ethelrad, much as it pains me to say this but in your original question you asked about UNbound neutrons whereas I suspect you made an typing error and was actually asking about Bound neutrons.

This is the only possible reason that Oliver actually answered you in the first place.

omatumr, you have yet to explain how an object that is well below the Chandrasekhar limit -- such as Sol -- can be, or contain, a neutron star. Go for it.

Oops. You are correct. I did make a mistake.

Still it did get a response from Oliver. True he made more errors than I did but it was a response. Meaningless as it was since it still isn't what he needs to support his position.

He does indeed need evidence that BOUND neutrons decay. And that neutrons repel each other in a way that the Pauli Exclusion Principle does not cover, that is that they repel each other much more strongly and for a longer distance than the PEP requires. The latter is needed for him to claim that neutrons in a neutron star are not bound.

Ethelred

Mr. Manuel wrote:

1. A "free neutron" is an "unbound neutron."
2. A "bound neutron" is part of the nucleus.

Decay occurs in both cases, as explained in the information provided.

Yes. Neutron emission is one of the modes for spontaneous nuclear decays that transforms the nucleus. The others are electron emission (beta decay), positron emission, proton emission, alpha decay, and spontaneous fission.

I have read your papers before, and my question is this:

In your model for stellar energy production via neutron repulsion, which nuclei (or what are the general properties of the nuclei) are those that eject the neutrons that decay? It is not perfectly clear from your papers.

A related question (I think): you also refer to this equation rxn

--> n E

where E ~ 10-22 MeV. What are these "" which you refer to? Are they related to the neutrons in the nuclei that eject the neutrons? I am unfamiliar with this notation.

Many kind thanks in advance for your reply.

My posting was mangled by the system interpreting the "angle bracket" as and HTML tag. So using parentheses this:

A related question (I think): you also refer to this equation rxn

--> n E

where E ~ 10-22 MeV. What are these "" which you refer to? Are they related to the neutrons in the nuclei that eject the neutrons? I am unfamiliar with this notation.

would be

(n) -- n plus E

and the item in quotes was a "bracket n bracket"

Let's see if this works...

omatumr, you have yet to explain how an object that is well below the Chandrasekhar limit -- such as Sol -- can be, or contain, a neutron star. Go for it.

Neutron stars [1] decay by:

a.) Neutron emission and
b.) Fragmentation (fission)

The lower limit on a neutron star is a single neutron.

Many ago (before you were born?) nuclear scientists tried to find a di-neutron.

Since 1971, experimental data that disagree with the Bilderberg model of the Sun [2] were avoided to protect the illusion that Earth's heat source is steady and in equilibrium [2].

That falsehood is the cornerstone of anthropogenic climate change story.

The Sun has evolved, Earth's climate has changed, both continue to evolve, as does life [3]

Reference:

1. Neutron repulsion, The APEIRON Journal (2011) in press

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

www.youtube.com/w...yLYSiPO0

2. The Bilderberg model, Solar Physics (1968) vol 3, 5-25
http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G

3. Origin and evolution of life constraints on the solar model, Journal of Modern Physics (2011) vol 2, 587-594

http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

I regret that it took 40 years to figure out that the Bilderberg model of the Sun [2] and the AGW model of Earth's climate are two peas in the same propaganda pod.

We were abundantly blessed with the old curse,

"May you live in interesting times!"

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

The lower limit on a neutron star is a single neutron.

A single neutron constitutes a Neutron Star. That is what you just claimed Oliver.

Please clarify that since, as it is, it is quite beyond even the remotest concept of rational thinking.

Indeed it is right up there with you claim that the Sun has a rigid iron mantle that can be seen in Sun spots despite the photo you use as evidence does not have any signs of more than the expected trace of iron.

Ethelred

if you have 1 neutron and its a neutron star then how does neutron repulsion make its stellar energy that you claim powers all stars.......
couldnt help but notice you completely ignored stellar_d's post and that when anyone asks you how bound neutrons decay you throw your arms up and cant think of anything other than "because it is".