Gamma-ray burst reveals surprising ingredients of early galaxies

We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemically evolved, so early on.

By now it should be clear. The use of the word "surprise" basically means that the big bang assumptions have been falsified really badly. Just about every new observation does this, yet big bang continues to hang around in the minds of the research fraternity - awaiting final destruction by some really intrepid soul.

By now it should be clear.

means that the big bang assumptions have been falsified really badly.

Just about every new observation does this

awaiting final destruction by some really intrepid soul.

As I've mentioned a few times here already

the deeper the researchers look, the more they'll discover mature galaxies

Like other stars the Sun is massive and layered

fluid outer envelope (91% H and 9% He)

The iron-rich solar interior

pulsar solar core

I also do not know where Oliver get his idea of neutron repulsion.

he believes our sun was once a supernova with a remaining neutron star.

Now there is a way to go from a neutron star to our sun

neutrons decay into hydrogen

After 4.5 plus billion years the neutron core could have completely decayed by now.

what proof do you have that a neutron star could not decay?

The oldest pulsar (neutron star) known is 200 million years old.

So where are the ones that created the heavy elements in our solar system?

The natural background of neutrinos could easily supply the energy to cause the decay of neutron stars over the eons.

For one, the centrifugal force of a rotating neutron star could offset much of the gravitational force

neither one of us has any evidence as to whether or not a neutron star could decay, so why would you close the door to that possibility?

Furthermore, wouldn't the pulsar(s) that create the heavy elements in our solar system have rotated around our galaxy along with us?

Oliver could just be onto something.

Ethelred, you have no evidence that a neutron star does not decay.

There is indirect evidence that they DO decay.

No pulsar older than 200 million years has been detected.

So where are all the remnant supernovae neutron stars or pulsars that happened over the previous eons?

Where are the missing pulsars?

I say most likely they decay into sun size stars with orbiting planets, what is your answer?

You also maintain that bound neutrons do not decay.

They have been decaying in radioactive nuclei for eons.

The explosion expels much or all of a star's material[2] at a velocity of up to 30,000 km/s (10% of the speed of light), driving a shock wave[3] into the surrounding interstellar medium.

Some of what Oliver came up was not complete rubbish when he first came up with it. There was the Solar Neutrino problem . . .

Ethelred, you keep mentioning proof.

Where is your proof that the missing neutron stars are "dark" and invisible?

Or that gravitationally bound neutrons cannot decay?

Or that gravity even has any effect on the decay rate of neutrons? You have none.

As for the planets forming around a neutron star after the supernova explodes, well what do you think exploded into the void around the exploding star?

Two guesses, heavy and light elements. With the lighter elements further out, just like in our solar system.

Neutrino oscillation is highly questionable.

Not one single neutron that is bound in a stable atom has ever been detected to decay. If one did so ..

Arguing with "Ethylred" is useless.

He/she/it has no scientific credentials and understands nothing of what he/she/it reads.

1. Big Bang model of the universe,

2. The UNs global climate model [a],

3. The Bilderberg SSM solar model [b], and

4. The Greenspan/Bernanke economic model for the Federal Reserve [c]

However, the hero in "1984" finally conceded the power of Big Brother [d]

Why not just address experimental data

reviewed by literally hundreds of PhD scientists, graduate students, co-authors, editors and reviewers around the globe?

Can I have one of the geese?

two galaxies in the young Universe that are richer in the heavier chemical elements than the Sun

Ethelred, you claim no heavy elements are orbiting around neutron stars, we have NO such proof of that whatsoever.

Can I have one of the geese?

Ethelred, you claim no heavy elements are orbiting around neutron stars, we have NO such proof of that whatsoever.

We cannot even detect large planets orbiting stars directly so how could we possibly detect asteroid size chunks of heavy elements orbiting a neutron stars at hundreds times the distances we are finding these planets?

Also you still have not shone me ANY evidence of gravity slowing down or stopping neutron decay.

Gravity and the strong force are not the same thing!

In fact Ethelred's statement is false.

The early theories of pulsar planet formation have been summarized by Podsiadlowski (1993) and further discussed by Phinney & Hansen (1993). More recently, Miller & Hamilton (2001) and Hansen (2002) have examined the conditions of survival and evolution of pulsar protoplanetary disks.

They have concluded that an initially sufficiently massive (greater than 1028 g) disk would be able to resist evaporation by the pulsar accretion flux and create planets on a typical ~107 yr timescale. A quick formation of a massive disk around the pulsar could, for instance, be accomplished by tidal disruption of a stellar companion (Stevens, Rees, & Podsiadlowski 1992; Phinney & Hansen 1993) or, possibly, in the process of a white dwarf merger (Podsiadlowski, Pringle, & Rees 1991; Livio, Pringle, & Saffer 1992). Both these processes, although entirely feasible, cannot be very common. In fact, with the exception of PSR B1257 12, no planetary companions have emerged from the precision timing of 48 Galactic millisecond pulsars (Lorimer 2001), implying their rarity, independently of the specific formation mechanism.

That's brilliant. Pressure2 claims Ethelred said something that Ethelred never did, and then Omatumor siezes the opportunity to repeat the false claim and then repost some links he's posted here a dozen times before. What teamwork.

Ethelred, you are still into a flat earth type of thinking.

think just because the vast majority agree with you

you have the facts even when observations disagree with you.

Barakn, I think I quoted Ethelred correctly.

Ethelred, you claim no heavy elements are orbiting around neutron stars, we have NO such proof of that whatsoever.

No. It all reaches escape velocity. EVERY supernova that has been observed does that. Even planetary nebulae and simple novas blow the matter into interstellar space. That is not a guess we can see it happen

Ethelred, I glad to see you now agree that ALL remnants of a supernova explosion do not reach escape velocity.

But he is not the first person to propose a supernova origin to our solar system.

I happen to think it has more merit than any other idea

Here are two reason I say this, one the heavier elements are neared the the sun or the original neutron star

This is exactly like all explosions from the center out

isn't a bit strange that ALL the planets orbit the sun on nearly the same plane and in the same direction?

This also indicates a common source not some random picking up of heavy elements from some distant supernovae.

Ethelred, I glad to see you now agree that ALL remnants of a supernova explosion do not reach escape velocity.

It isn't really a matter of NOW. A small percentage of the matter is really not that significant so I just ignored the TINY amount that might remain.

"Ethel, a small persectage is all that needed, if fact 1/2 of 1% should do just fine."

Nothing makes sense in Olivers theory. It has a patched neutron repulsion that has no evidence to support it. It requires a magic supernova. He even thinks the cycle is eternal. In Oliver's theories ALL stars have neutronium core. EVERY SINGLE ONE. They all just keep banging away by magic. Yes by magic as the way Oliver describes it there Suns are perpetual motion machines.

I see that you didn't read ANY of the links again. Please do so. You are still arguing from purest ignorance and you are just waving your hands around and insisting things may be so because you said so.

Ethelred

There is a better chance that Zephir-rawa-callipo is right than Oliver.

"This also indicates a common source not some random picking up of heavy elements from some distant supernovae."

You seemed to have overlooked a recent paper (that I linked above) discussing this very topic: http://arxiv.org/...12v1.pdf

Why not give it a read and reconsider your ill-informed statement.

Ethel, a small persectage is all that needed, if fact 1/2 of 1% should do just fine."

I said I did not agree with many of Oliver's ideas.

But at the same time that is not evidence the a supernova origin to our solar system is wrong.

Ethelred, let me repeat, 1/2 of 1% left obiting a recent supernove is plenty of mass to create a solar system like our own

XYZ, I did read it and it does not deal with the odds against all the planets orbit in the same direction and in nearly the same plane

Now I may not be correct on this but I believe the sun also rotates in the same direction

What are the odds against something like that?

A supernova origin of our solar system can also explain why the sun put our less energy billions of years than it does today.

The neutron core was not fully decayed then, it more than likely is today.

Ethelred you also state that it is pressure that keeps neutrons from decaying, where is your proof?
Neutrons decay in a nuclei after being stable for millions or billions of years. So what causes the neutron to suddenly decay? It cannot be pressure because the pressure is the same throughout this period of time according to the Standard Model.

Do you have any specific objections to the the paper I referenced by Gritschneder et al concerning the possible enrichment of the protosolar nebula by a nearby supernova?

That link of "strange xenon" with all primordial helium at the birth of the Solar System

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

Has been ignored by leaders of the space science community since 1975.

you present no hard evidence to back up your claims,

"Let me simply state it this way a very LARGE star goes supernova..."

OK, now, where does the very first star in the universe come from? Got a ref for that?

Measurements at the University of Chicago provided the "hard evidence" that YYZ and ETH have been seeking:

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

Why was all primordial Helium labeled with "Strange Xenon" at the birth of the Solar System?

So, bluehigh, what specifically are your objections to the notion that a supernova seeded the protosolar nebula with heavy elements. Any reputable refs?

Measurements at the University of Chicago provided the "hard evidence" that YYZ and ETH have been seeking:

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

Why was all primordial Helium labeled with "Strange Xenon" at the birth of the Solar System?

Here are more data from analyses of diverse meteorites for YYZ and ETH to address:

www.sciencedirect...80900147

http://adsabs.har...41..312M

I really do not understand your statement. Let me simply state it this way a very LARGE star goes supernova leaving behind a neutron star along with asteroid size chunks of heavy elements orbiting it.

The neutrons on the surface of this neutron star, now only slightly larger than our sun, decay into hydrogen.

The asteroid size chunks of heavy elements form the earth and the other planets over millions of years.

During these millions of years the hydrogen builds up on surface

I was BLOCKED from posting.

the pressure in the nucleus is 10 to the 38 power times greater than the gravitational force.

So unless my math is way off,

But some how neutrons keep decaying inside nuclei.

do you figure 3 billion gravities at the surface is greater than the nuclear force which is 10 to the 38th power times greater than the gravitational force?