Gamma-ray burst reveals surprising ingredients of early galaxies

Nov 02, 2011
This artist's impression shows two galaxies in the early universe. The brilliant explosion on the left is a gamma-ray burst. The light from the burst travels through both galaxies on its way to Earth (outside the frame to the right). Analysis of observations of the light from this gamma-ray burst made using ESO's Very Large Telescope have shown that these two galaxies are remarkably rich in heavier chemical elements. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of astronomers has used the brief but brilliant light of a distant gamma-ray burst as a probe to study the make-up of very distant galaxies. Surprisingly the new observations, made with ESO’s Very Large Telescope, have revealed two galaxies in the young Universe that are richer in the heavier chemical elements than the Sun. The two galaxies may be in the process of merging. Such events in the early Universe will drive the formation of many new stars and may be the trigger for gamma-ray bursts.

Gamma-ray bursts are the brightest explosions in the Universe. They are first spotted by orbiting observatories that detect the initial short burst of gamma rays. After their positions have been pinned down, they are then immediately studied using large ground-based telescopes that can detect the visible-light and infrared afterglows that the bursts emit over the succeeding hours and days. One such burst, called GRB 090323, was first spotted by the NASA Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Very soon afterwards it was picked up by the X-ray detector on NASA's Swift satellite and with the GROND system at the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope in Chile and then studied in great detail using ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) just one day after it exploded.

The VLT observations show that the brilliant light from the gamma-ray burst had passed through its own host galaxy and another galaxy nearby. These are being seen as they were about 12 billion years ago. Such distant galaxies are very rarely caught in the glare of a gamma-ray burst.

"When we studied the light from this gamma-ray burst we didn't know what we might find. It was a surprise that the cool gas in these two galaxies in the early Universe proved to have such an unexpected chemical make-up," explains Sandra Savaglio (Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Garching, Germany), lead author of the paper describing the new results. "These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemically evolved, so early on."

As light from the gamma-ray burst passed through the galaxies, the gas there acted like a filter, and absorbed some of the light from the gamma-ray burst at certain wavelengths. Without the gamma-ray burst these faint galaxies would be invisible. By carefully analysing the tell-tale fingerprints from different chemical elements the team was able to work out the composition of the cool gas in these very distant galaxies, and in particular how rich they were in heavy elements.

It is expected that galaxies in the young Universe will be found to contain smaller amounts of heavier elements than galaxies at the present day, such as the Milky Way. The heavier elements are produced during the lives and deaths of generations of stars, gradually enriching the gas in the galaxies. can use the chemical enrichment in galaxies to indicate how far they are through their lives. But the new observations, surprisingly, revealed that some galaxies were already very rich in heavy elements less than two billion years after the Big Bang. Something unthinkable until recently.

This artist’s impression shows two galaxies in the early Universe. The brilliant explosion on the left is a gamma-ray burst. As the light from the burst passes through the two galaxies  on the way to Earth (outside the frame to the right) some colours are absorbed by the cool gas in the galaxies, leaving characteristic dark lines in the spectrum. Careful study of these spectra has allowed astronomers to discover that these two galaxies are remarkably rich in heavier chemical elements. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

The newly discovered pair of young galaxies must be forming new stars at a tremendous rate, to enrich the cool gas so strongly and quickly. As the two galaxies are close to each other they may be in the process of merging, which would also provoke star formation when the gas clouds collide. The new results also support the idea that gamma-ray bursts may be associated with vigorous massive star formation.

Energetic star formation in galaxies like these might have ceased early on in the history of the Universe. Twelve billion years later, at the present time, the remains of such galaxies would contain a large number of stellar remnants such as black holes and cool dwarf stars, forming a hard to detect population of "dead galaxies", just faint shadows of how they were in their brilliant youths. Finding such corpses in the present day would be a challenge.

"We were very lucky to observe GRB 090323 when it was still sufficiently bright, so that it was possible to obtain spectacularly detailed observations with the VLT. Gamma-ray bursts only stay bright for a very short time and getting good quality data is very hard. We hope to observe these galaxies again in the future when we have much more sensitive instruments, they would make perfect targets for the E-ELT," concludes Savaglio.

Explore further: Astronomer confirms a new "Super-Earth" planet

More information: This research was presented in a paper "Super-solar Metal Abundances in Two Galaxies at z ~ 3.57 revealed by the GRB 090323 Afterglow Spectrum" to appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Related Stories

Swift Satellite records early phase of gamma ray burst

Mar 02, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- UK astronomers, using a telescope aboard the NASA Swift Satellite, have captured information from the early stages of a gamma ray burst - the most violent and luminous explosions occurring ...

Rare observation of cosmic explosion

Mar 10, 2011

Gamma ray bursts, which are the most powerful bursts of radiation in the universe, have now been observed in direct connection with an exploding giant star - a supernova. Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute ...

The Oddball Hosts of Gamma-ray Bursts

Oct 22, 2008

There's a universal tendency to heed Dylan Thomas's exhortation and go out with a bang instead of a whimper. Nowhere is this more evident than deep in the cosmos.

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 ...

Science with Integral -- 5 years on

Oct 17, 2007

With eyes that peer into the most energetic phenomena in the universe, ESA’s Integral has been setting records, discovering the unexpected and helping understanding the unknown over its first five years.

Recommended for you

Kepler proves it can still find planets

Dec 18, 2014

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the Kepler spacecraft's death was greatly exaggerated. Despite a malfunction that ended its primary mission in May 2013, Kepler is still alive and working. The evidence ...

User comments : 117

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Waterdog
not rated yet Nov 02, 2011
Since these early galaxies have been continuously emitting light presumably until the present time, can we by looking at the right distances follow the evolution of these galaxies? Seems logical but wrong somehow.
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (30) Nov 02, 2011
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.

As I've mentioned a few times here already - the deeper the researchers look, the more they'll discover mature galaxies that shouldn't be according to big bang theory.

Rohitasch
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2011


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.



Yeah! And the total destruction of the Round Earth Theory too! Right?
omatwankr
3.3 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2011
Big Bang = Ponzi Scheme of Assumptions.

But What to replace it with?

I would recommend Repulsive Neutrons, no assumptions needed just blind mindless faith in one mans delusions. Other mens delusions don't include as many undeniable links to a paper of my own and a dropbox account full of vague shite.

I will throw-in links to basically the same asinine statements I pepper interweb forums with, knowing that repetition is proof as proved by my repetition of Repellent Neutron theory, their sweet voices that only I can here whisper the secrets of the universe to me as I sleep.

Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2011
Metals in the early universe?...Say it ain't so! So much for the Big Bang Fantasy (BBF).
omatumr
Nov 02, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gmurphy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2011
Wow, nothing brings out the crazies like an astronomy article. I recall recently reading some research which suggested that the fine structure constant is not as constant as we've assumed. If such variation can occur, then perhaps, our understanding of galaxy evolution needs to be re-evaluated in this new light.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2011
By now it should be clear.
That Kevin is not going to respond to relevant questions.

When was the Flood Kevin? But I ask anyway.

means that the big bang assumptions have been falsified really badly.
No, there is the remote possibility that the BB is completely wrong but there is no chance we live in a young Universe. What this really means we don't yet understand the evolution of galaxies in the earliest stages. It is kind of hard to see them.

Just about every new observation does this
No. You just lie them which is not the same thing.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2011
awaiting final destruction by some really intrepid soul.
Tick tock. I am waiting for your replacement of the BB with a scientifically theory. One that accounts for the universal red shift, our being able to see for billions of light years, and takes into account the fact that the Solar System is billions of years old and is clearly not an early starter in our galaxy.

As I've mentioned a few times here already
You don't count very well do you?

the deeper the researchers look, the more they'll discover mature galaxies
Only they have looked and not seen what you claim. The distant galaxies are more mature than expected but they not the same as the closer and thus older galaxies.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2011
Like other stars the Sun is massive and layered
Massive but not massive enough to have a neutron star in it. And there is not evidence of layers. Just your need for them to exist.

fluid outer envelope (91% H and 9% He)
Close to that same as the core as we can see that matches the nebulae that stars form in.

The iron-rich solar interior
For which you have no evidence just a desire for it to be true so you manufacture evidence based on the theory that the Sun has a neutron core which is circular reasoning.

pulsar solar core
Which is contrary to the evidence. The smallest pulsars are all more massive than the Sun.

And it is all dependent on a magic supernova that somehow keeps the metals in the inner solar system despite ALL known supernova blasting out most of the debris into interstellar space. Neither you nor anyone else even has the beginning of a wild assed guess as to how a supernova would not disperse most of the metals into interstellar space.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2011
Very good Oliver. You have no valid response so you give me ones. Was that a sullen surrender?

Here is more that you have never made an actual reply to.

You insist there is such a thing as neutron repulsion. You insist it is strong enough to stop the formation of black holes, not just stellar black holes but ALL black holes no matter what the size. Also it you claim it is long ranged enough to sunder galaxies. Though you refuse to answer any question about its actual strength or range those claims make it clear that it MUST be more powerful than gravity per unit of mass even if the mass is mostly hydrogen atoms as we can see makes up most the mass in the in the Universe, based on your denial of Dark Matter that is.

It really doesn't require a great deal of effort to notice that there is a severe problem with that set of claims. They make galaxies, stars, even neutron stars, planets and pretty much everything held together by gravity impossible.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2011
Please explain this contradiction of reality that really is an inevitable conclusion based on your own claims for Neutron Repulsion.

Another ONE is not an explanation. I and any anyone else would have to consider it either another of your sullen surrenders or just an attempt to bully.

Ethelred
yyz
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2011
"Neither you nor anyone else even has the beginning of a wild assed guess as to how a supernova would not disperse most of the metals into interstellar space."

And conversely, a new paper posted recently on arXiv has again looked at the possibility that an ancient supernova seeded the primordial cloud that eventually collapsed to form our solar system: http://arxiv.org/...12v1.pdf

Using hydrodynamic models these researchers found that a supernova would be able to both initiate collapse of and sufficiently enrich a 10 solar mass gas cloud with Al26 (within ~5pc, similar to the environment found in some young star clusters; M16 is referenced).

While not the first study examine this scenario, it does underscore some of the advances being made in the study of the birth of the solar system.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2011
Ethelred, I also do not know where Oliver get his idea of neutron repulsion. But I think I know where he gets the idea of a neutron core in our sun.

I think 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.

Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2011
I also do not know where Oliver get his idea of neutron repulsion.
It appears to be to support his neutron Sun idea.

he believes our sun was once a supernova with a remaining neutron star.
He has claimed exactly that many times.

Now there is a way to go from a neutron star to our sun
The smallest possible neutron star is larger than our Sun.

neutrons decay into hydrogen
Bound neutrons do not decay. Free neutrons and neutrons in unstable nuclei yes, but actually bound no. The neutrons in a neutron star are bound by pressure so strong that protons merge with and electron and a neutrino and some energy to form the neutrons. Protons from the decay of neutrons would just be forced back into a neutron.

After 4.5 plus billion years the neutron core could have completely decayed by now.
We can see pulsars, the Crab has one. They show no signs of this alleged decay. Plus Oliver is quite insistent that the Sun HAS a pulsar in it. Not had, HAS.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2011
Exactly 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.

Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2011
what proof do you have that a neutron star could not decay?
Exactly what evidence is there that they do such?

The oldest pulsar (neutron star) known is 200 million years old.
And there is no evidence that it is decaying. No reason to believe it should either as it would be contrary to how the neutronium forms from the pressure of gravity.

So where are the ones that created the heavy elements in our solar system?
Four and half billion years in our past. Around 16 rotations of the galaxy ago. Not likely to be in our neighborhood anymore and not likely to be visible unless very close.

The natural background of neutrinos could easily supply the energy to cause the decay of neutron stars over the eons.
No. They aren't going to make the gravitational pressure disappear.

Not one single neutron that is bound in a stable atom has ever been detected to decay. If one did so the pressure would just force the proton to merge with the first available electron.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2011
Ethelred, there are several things you are not considering.
For one, the centrifugal force of a rotating neutron star could offset much of the gravitational force.
True , 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? Where are they?
Oliver could just be onto something. Maybe it just decay into our sun.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2011
For one, the centrifugal force of a rotating neutron star could offset much of the gravitational force
Actually I have thought about it. It can't offset all the force though as with that force you won't have a neutron core. It is the gravitational pressure that causes protons to merge with electrons and form neutrons. However Oliver has been quite careful to never make clear just what he means by a neutron core. Despite all the questions that have been asked he won't say however he has made statements that imply different things at different times. Sometimes he seems to mean the neutrons are in iron. Other times he claims the iron is only in a rigid mantle. Neither makes any sense. The neutrons in iron do NOT decay. That would have been detected in the proton decay experiments.

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?
There should be evidence but there isn't any. That is why.>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2011
Furthermore, wouldn't the pulsar(s) that create the heavy elements in our solar system have rotated around our galaxy along with us?
Pulsars do NOT create really heavy elements. The supernova that left the pulsar behind created the elements that are heavier than iron. 4.5 billion years is a long time and the galactic disc is not rigid. We know that stars forming nebulae disperse over time. Farther out goes slower, closer to the core goes faster.

Oliver could just be onto something.
The only thing Oliver has ever been onto is that the Solar System was effected by A supernova. Supernova disperse matter into interstellar space. The do NOT dump it all just a few AU out from the star as Oliver is claiming. It is not an accident that Oliver is ignoring my posts on that. He has NO answer for the simple that he is wrong.

Keep an open mind. But not so far open that your brains fall out.

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

Ethelred
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2011
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.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
Ethelred, you have no evidence that a neutron star does not decay.
You are repeating yourself. There is no evidence that they do or can. It is up to YOU or Oliver to supply the evidence. Unsupported claims are worthless.

What you are doing is exactly the same as if I insisted that Geese lay golden eggs and said it YOU have failed to prove they don't.

There is indirect evidence that they DO decay.
No. None. Go ahead an post something besides the nonexistence of any reason to suppose that they do.

No pulsar older than 200 million years has been detected.
Why do you think we should be able to detect something 20 miles in diameter when it isn't active.

So where are all the remnant supernovae neutron stars or pulsars that happened over the previous eons?
They are dark. They are tiny despite the mass. Or rather because of the mass and the lack of energy output.

Where are the missing pulsars?
They are dark. There is no reason to expect to see them.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
I say most likely they decay into sun size stars with orbiting planets, what is your answer?
I say geese lay golden eggs. What is YOUR evidence? How did they decay into PLANETS, where did those come from? Magic? I have this goose, you can't prove I don't.

You also maintain that bound neutrons do not decay.
Yes except you left out the stable nuclei part.

They have been decaying in radioactive nuclei for eons.
Those are not bound. I said bound neutrons in stable nuclei, not simply bound. I also showed why they can't decay in neutron stars. YOU are making the claim. It is up to YOU to support it. The matter in neutron stars is either bound by gravity or in the form of degenerate but stable nuclei as that what will remain after a star goes boom.

To do so you will need to show how a neutron star can decay despite the lack of evidence that they do. We already know why they can't be seen. They are small and eventually dark. If they decayed they would never become dark.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2011
I have the distinct impression that everything you know about neutron stars you learned for Oliver. He has never taken a single astronomy class. He said that. I don't think he has even read the wiki on neutron stars. Have YOU read his papers? I have.

http://en.wikiped...on_stars

http://en.wikiped...upernova

The above is the type of supernova that Oliver is claiming.

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.
That is why a supernova of the Sun could not provide material for our Solar System. Oliver refuses to even acknowledge questions about this.

Theories are not the just the waving of hands and saying things are so. In physics there is a need for a mathematical description and actual evidence that fits the math.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2011
Nothing of Oliver's theory fits any known evidence EXCEPT for the evidence that a supernova involved in the formation of the solar system. Since the matter blown out by a supernova is at WAY above escape velocity we know it could not be from OUR Sun and had to have been from another.

On top of all that, in an attempt to support his idea Oliver came up with neutron repulsion. There is no evidence for it. What he claims as evidence fits the Pauli Exclusion Principle and in fact does NOT fit he neutron repulsion theory since if it where true the addition of neutrons would make larger nuclei less stable not more as the evidence shows. Oliver just ignore this when it is mentioned. He has been asked about here and elsewhere many times. He ignores the question.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2011
Some of what Oliver came up was not complete rubbish when he first came up with it. There was the Solar Neutrino problem. That made his wild assed guesses, and that was all they were as they had no math, at least they were an attempt to fit a need. The Neutrino problem no longer exists as they have mass and oscillate. Mention this to Oliver and he either ignores it or goes ballistic.

It is up to YOU or Oliver to show how a Supernova could dump the new material in the inner solar system despite the ample evidence that it would not. To show that neutrons can decay in a neutron star. TO show the neutrons repel each other at long range rather than fitting the Pauli Exclusion Principle. To show how a a star, planet, or anything at all could be bound by gravity is neutron repulsion actually existed.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2011
Keep in mind that the most likely reason Oliver came up with neutron repulsion is because there is no way for any significant amount of non-degenerate matter to exist on the surface of a neutron star in any remotely reasonable model of neutron stars. He had to have a photosphere and that cannot exist on a neutron star. Go ahead and ask Oliver any of this. I can predict his answer. Assuming he acknowledges the questions at all.

'Well I am glad you asked that question. Here are links to my papers.'

And nothing in the papers cover the questions. I and others have looked. How about YOU read them?

Ethelred
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2011
Some of what Oliver came up was not complete rubbish when he first came up with it. There was the Solar Neutrino problem . . .


Arguing with "Ethylred" is useless.

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

When the history of science is finally written, remarkable parallels will be found between:

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]

If writers of history are less persuaded by political pressure than writers of BB, AGW, SSM and Economics.

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

[a] The UN's IPCC Reports on Climate Change
www.ipcc.ch/

[b] Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)
http://adsabs.har...oPh.3.5G

[c] The Federal Reserve
www.save-a-patrio...fed.html

[d] George Orwell, "1984"
www.online-litera...ll/1984/
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2011
[b] Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)]

http://adsabs.har....3....5G
yyz
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2011
Obvoiusly Oliver's carefully reasoned response to legitimate questions asked by others (Eth, barakn, jsdd, PE, myself to name just a few) is to rank the questions with a "1" and ignore them. Then link to numerous self-referential papers he has spammed this site with and his repeated claims conspiracy theories and scientific incompetance/deception are to blame for lack of acceptance of his notions.

Then post irrelevant links to global warming deniers as proof of the validity of ALL of his fantastical claims. All this superfluous, nonsensical exposition by oliver is then posted on multiple science blogs, instead of a professional forum to be examined and critiqued by a jury of his peers.

What a colossal waste of everybody's time!
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2011
Why not just address experimental data and observations reported and reviewed by literally hundreds of PhD scientists, graduate students, co-authors, editors and reviewers around the globe?

www.eso.org/publi...eso1029/

www.omatumr.com/P...face.htm

http://apod.nasa....918.html

www.youtube.com/w...7OZx2NYo

www.omatumr.com/i...Fig3.htm

www.griffith.edu....S176.pdf

www.mitosyfraudes...t-1.html

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

www.lpi.usra.edu/...1033.pdf]www.lpi.usra.edu/...1033.pdf[/url]

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

www.lpi.usra.edu/...1033.pdf]www.lpi.usra.edu/...1033.pdf[/url]

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

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09

yyz
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
Except for the links above that you either authored or coauthored, NONE of those links mentions, discusses or advocates:

1)neutron repulsion as an observed phenomena
2)that the sun is a supernova remnant with a pulsar at its' core
3)that galaxies and star clusters form from the fragmentation of "supermassive neutron stars"
4)that the accelerated expansion of the universe results from neutron repulsion
5)that black holes of any mass cannot form in light of neutron repulsion
6)that all stars are "plasma diffusers" that rely on neutron star cores born from their supernova progenitor
7)that neutron repulsion is nothing more than a manifestation of the well known Heisenberg uncertainty principle

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

Any independent confirmation (not written, coauthored or peer reviewed by you) of these *observations* outside of the dated, disproved work by Toth and Molina?
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2011
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.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
Ethelred, you keep mentioning proof.
Yes. Oliver doesn't have any. Though he just proved that my prediction of his behavior was exactly correct. And since you ranked me with a one despite that you just got ones for all those posts that I had left alone.

Where is your proof that the missing neutron stars are "dark" and invisible?
We can't see them. Where is your proof that they don't exist? We already know that they are tiny and cool down. We knew exactly were the Crab pulsar was but it wasn't seen in visible light till recently those farther will be more difficult. We also know that at least one type IIa supernova has no detectable pulsar in the remains, 1987a. That means it either black holed, and Oliver says this cannot happen, or pulsars have a directional component to the radio beams and that 1987a is not pointed in our direction. So either Oliver is wrong and black holes exist or there are many pulsars that are invisible even when they are new.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
Or that gravitationally bound neutrons cannot decay?
I showed already. They same process that forces protons to combine with electron to form neutrons would still be there to force the new protons to recombine.

Or that gravity even has any effect on the decay rate of neutrons? You have none.
I just did it again. IF neutronium can form the very laws that make it form make it inherent that they remain bound. If that is beyond your comprehension than you need to take some time off from the discussion till you understand it.

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?
Matter at ten percent of the speed of light. I said that already also, it is time you started to read what you respond to.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
Two guesses, heavy and light elements. With the lighter elements further out, just like in our solar system.
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.

Read the bloody links I posted. And that was cowardly the way you failed to acknowledge my successful prediction of Oliver's actions. Ranking me at one for a successful prediction is the sign of closed mind. However you now have Oliver's papers right in front of you. READ THEM and the two links I posted.

Neutrino oscillation is highly questionable.
The evidence is quite sound. Oliver is one of the few that questions it and he is simply ignoring the evidence. Just like he is ignoring my questions.

Ethelred
bluehigh
3.2 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2011
Not one single neutron that is bound in a stable atom has ever been detected to decay. If one did so ..
- Ethelred

Stop right there. Not 'If one did so ..'. They simply do not.
Any conjecture involving neutron decay within a stable atom is time wasting fantasy.

Can I have one of the geese?
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2011
Arguing with "Ethylred" is useless.
That is because you are wrong. Your inability to answer the questions is ample evidence of that. It is not my fault that you were unable to support yourself the few times you have actually engaged in anything that remotely resembled rational discourse. Here or on any of the other sites you have written on.

He/she/it has no scientific credentials and understands nothing of what he/she/it reads.
You do lie a lot. I fully understood your papers. YOU do not understand that you have no evidence to support your claims. And YOUR credentials are an embarrassment to the institutions that awarded them.

By the way that personal attack earns a link to the Missouri Megan's Law page for you.

http://www.mshp.d...leName=K

Gee nice new photo. Just last month.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2011
1. Big Bang model of the universe,
Which is pretty sound but may not be true. Brane theory is interesting and that would not produce a singularity.

2. The UNs global climate model [a],

3. The Bilderberg SSM solar model [b], and
The two have no relation. You clearly did not read the Bilderberg paper. It makes no claims about the stability of the Sun AND its both obsolete and not generally accepted.

4. The Greenspan/Bernanke economic model for the Federal Reserve [c]
Has nothing to do with your theories. The Federal Reserve may or not suck but that doesn't make any difference to your lack of evidence.

However, the hero in "1984" finally conceded the power of Big Brother [d]
And it is still fiction. I read it in Junior High, about the same time Kennedy was assassinated. Based on your non-reading of the Bilderberg paper and that Kissinger letter that didn't support your wild eyed claims about it, it is likely that you haven't read 1984 either.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2011
Why not just address experimental data
Did it many times. Why don't you answer my questions?

reviewed by literally hundreds of PhD scientists, graduate students, co-authors, editors and reviewers around the globe?
None of whom actually support your papers or site them. And your students are most obvious by their total avoidance of you. Not a one has supported you.

Answer the questions.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2011
Can I have one of the geese?
I am sorry but the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark actually owns them. I only got to study it not keep it. He doesn't let me keep the gold either.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2011
two galaxies in the young Universe that are richer in the heavier chemical elements than the Sun
In dense aether model the Universe is steady state and the galaxies are condensing and evaporating randomly inside it like giant density fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas forming the vacuum. Therefore it's nothing strange, the very distant galaxies contain as many heavy elements, as these close ones. After all, it's one of observable parameters, in which this model can be tested, validated and distinguished from Big Bang model.
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2011
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!
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2011
Ethelred, you claim no heavy elements are orbiting around neutron stars, we have NO such proof of that whatsoever.


In fact Ethelred's statement is false.

The first planetary system discovered beyond the solar system consisted of rocky, Earth-like planets [made of HEAVY ELEMENTS like Fe, O, Ni, Si, S] orbiting a neutron star.

Nature 255, 145-147 (1992)

www.nature.com/na...5a0.html

Science 264, 538-542 (1994)

www.sciencemag.or...5158/538
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2011
Can I have one of the geese?


One geese is a goose.
barakn
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2011
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
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2011
Ethelred, you claim no heavy elements are orbiting around neutron stars, we have NO such proof of that whatsoever.
I didn't say that, some neutron stars may have remnants of the original system, indeed some have companion stars that survived the supernova. I said supernovas blow most of the matter out of the system it started in. There is not one sign or indication that there is something keeping the heavy elements in the system it started in. Indeed we see those elements spread out for light years around the explosions. Yet Oliver says it stayed in the Solar System.

READ THE BLOODY LINKS.

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?
Does the concept of BLOWN OUT OF THE SYSTEM FOR LIGHT YEARS AROUND completely escape you? Exactly unlike Oliver is claiming.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2011
Also you still have not shone me ANY evidence of gravity slowing down or stopping neutron decay.
I did. It is not my fault you can't read.

Gravity and the strong force are not the same thing!
Where did that come from? I never made such a claim. GO READ THE LINKS. HERE THEY ARE AGAIN.

Bloody hell, arguing that you don't know anything is no excuse for this crap.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_IIa_supernova

http://en.wikiped...on_stars

And have some antidotes to ignorance.

http://www.astro....tar.html

http://arxiv.org/.../0309041

http://imagine.gs...ars.html]http://imagine.gs...ars.html[/url]

http://imagine.gs...ars.html]http://imagine.gs...ars.html[/url]

http://spacedaily...ake.html

Why we can't expect to find them where they started
http://www.newsci...e/dn9730

http://en.wikiped...b_Nebula

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2011
http://en.wikiped...b_Pulsar

There is a possibility that the Crab pulsar has a planet. But there has been no confirmation in the succeeding 40 years. If there is one it would be a remnant of something from before the Supernova as it has been way too short a time for anything to form anew. Especially with the pulsar driving the remaining material out of the system.

http://en.wikiped...ron_star

http://en.wikiped...SN_1987A

http://en.wikiped...stars%29

Heck this image is just of a nova, the star Eta Carinae is still there.
http://en.wikiped...inae.jpg

Oliver, you should read the links too. Its about time you read something that wasn't your own paper. Heck we have caught posting links to things you didn't read. I recommend that you read that Bilderberg paper as you clearly have not read it. It doesn't say what you claim.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2011
In fact Ethelred's statement is false.
Could be because I didn't say it. Of course you ignored by my actual questions, as predicted.

That was an interesting link. A unique system. Which means it doesn't apply to much else.

http://en.wikiped...257%2B12

Which does say they might be from a second round of planet formation. What they don't show is a SUN. There is an actual millisecond pulsar. Which is quite contrary to your theory. And there are only rocky planets, and no known gas giants.

A follow up paper by Konacki and Wolszczan from 2003
http://iopscience...fulltext
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.
More of quote in next.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2011
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.
They don't agree with your ideas of planetary formation Oliver. They consider a VERY rare occurrence. >>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2011
http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Note that this is one FAST moving system at 300KM/S. Which is another more than slightly unusual aspect. The paper above is about the way the planets might have formed.

Oliver none of that stuff actually fits your theories. It is interesting though. This neutron star may not even be the result of type IIa supernova.

Now since you have shown yourself willing to respond to stuff that others FALSELY claimed I wrote it is about time you responded to what I really write. Some of questions are already here on the thread. It is exceedingly disingenuous to respond only to stuff others faked.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2011
Ethelred, you are still into a flat earth type of thinking. You think just because the vast majority agree with you, you have the facts even when observations disagree with you.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2011
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.

An Ethelred direct quote: "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."

Barakn, I think I quoted Ethelred correctly. What part of ALL don't you understand?
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2011
Ethelred, you are still into a flat earth type of thinking.
I knew two guys that published a Flat Earth newzine. It was a joke for them. However YOU are pushing a Flat Earth idea, not me.

think just because the vast majority agree with you
Few agree with me on my ideas about math being the reason for the existence of the Universe. But I unlike Oliver I don't spam the place with it and I know its pure speculation. I don't sweat it that I can't get everyone to agree. I don't impugn the motives of my opponents on that either.

you have the facts even when observations disagree with you.
I am waiting for those observations. Tick Tock.

Barakn, I think I quoted Ethelred correctly.
This time. Not the first time.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2011
First time:
Ethelred, you claim no heavy elements are orbiting around neutron stars, we have NO such proof of that whatsoever.
This time:

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
They are similar but NOT the same. For one thing that is the matter from the supernova. I said nothing about the matter in the rest of system and that was intentional. Planets have a chance to remain and stars definitely do.

As for 'all' I should have said most but it seemed a bit pedantic even for me. ALMOST all would be more accurate. However I am not aware of any system that with an OBSERVED supernova that had much if anything remaining after. Both the Crab and 1987a systems are pretty much empty in the zone where planets would form. The case Oliver posted MAY have been a type IIa supernova but no one was certain of it.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2011
A millisecond pulsar without a companion star is odd enough that they may form from differently than pulsars that are known to have been type IIa supernova remnants, which is what Oliver is saying our Sun is.

In any case that possible supernova was NOT observed and the system may have gathered material as it moved as it is moving VERY fast. I did not make up this idea in was in the papers I posted the links to.

Now read the bloody links. Don't you think it is about time you learned something instead of waving you hands and getting sullen because you can't produce any evidence?

Have you even read Oliver's papers? Its clear you haven't read the Wikis that were posted. It is telling that you have ignored reading anything you don't like. Oliver doesn't even read half the crap he posts. He just assumes it supports him and the only reason he hasn't gotten embarrassed over it is because sociopaths don't get embarrassed.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2011
Ethelred, I glad to see you now agree that ALL remnants of a supernova explosion do not reach escape velocity.
Oliver does have many different ideas that I do not agree with. 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.
Secondly, 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
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
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.

But he is not the first person to propose a supernova origin to our solar system.
He is the only person pushing it as OUR Sun being the source. I am FULLY aware that a supernova was involved in the Solar Systems beginning. I have so said on this very thread. If you look carefully at Olivers stuff his first attempt to make that idea public was at a convention and he was expecting to give a talk. Someone ELSE gave a talk on a supernova being involved in the initiation of our Solar System. That person didn't claim the SUN was what went bang which is likely the reason he gave a talk and Oliver did not.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
I happen to think it has more merit than any other idea
I happen to think that Oliver's idea is contrary to the laws of the Universe. And the evidence and reason and the known laws are in agreement. Which is backwards as I am going on the evidence the physics.

Here are two reason I say this, one the heavier elements are neared the the sun or the original neutron star
This is already understood. Light elements cannot remain in the inner solar system after the Sun lights up. Heavy elements ARE in the outer Solar System.

This is exactly like all explosions from the center out
Except it ignores the fact that ALL the elements from the supernova are almost entirely blown out of any system.

isn't a bit strange that ALL the planets orbit the sun on nearly the same plane and in the same direction?
No. And a magic supernova would have to be REALLY magic to have anything to do with that. The formation of a disc is inherent as a gas cloud collapses.>>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
This also indicates a common source not some random picking up of heavy elements from some distant supernovae.
That did not follow from your previous statements. It isn't random if a large star goes BANG in a nebulae, thus collapsing the clouds nearest to it. Which means that 'distant' remark was your fantasy and not based on any evidence or claim by anyone else.

We can see star forming nebulae with young massive stars in them. Those stars are too massive to last long. The largest, which are the ones that will create the most metals, are going to supernova before the nebula is scattered. We can see this in the Carina Nebula which is still quite dense and will soon be blasted by the supernova of Eta Carinae. That Sun could go at any time in the next million years or even the next day, though thousands of years seems more likely a million years seems rather long for such a massive star.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
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
yyz
3 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2011
"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.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
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."
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
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

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.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
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!

TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Nov 07, 2011
There is a better chance that Zephir-rawa-callipo is right than Oliver.
Waaaaaaa!! This is like saying the moslems have a better chance of being right than the jews. Or vice versa I forget which.

Doesnt matter! Waaaaaaaaaa!!
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
"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.

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?
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
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.
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
Ethelred, I cannot say for sure whether Oliver is the first or only one with the idea of our sun's supernova origin. I first read about the idea years ago, before I ever heard of physorg. But it is possible it was one of his paper that I read.

That is not any proof whatsoever that the idea is wrong. Remember at one time only a few people thought the earth was round and not flat. That did not make those people wrong did it?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
Ethel, a small persectage is all that needed, if fact 1/2 of 1% should do just fine."
Only you are then talking about a REAL pulsar and the magic one Oliver has. The Sun is too small AND you still don't get the heavy stuff in the inner solar system as YOU and Oliver claim happened.

I said I did not agree with many of Oliver's ideas.
You are agreeing with the most idiotic of them. The Sun could not have ever had a pulsar in it. The mass is wrong and a pulsar simply isn't going to shed mass or have neutron decay. The surface gravity is too high for the former and the core pressure that created the neutronium in the first place is going to keep it that way.

But at the same time that is not evidence the a supernova origin to our solar system is wrong.
The Solar System DID have a supernova in its origin. The sun was not the supernova that will not change just because you and Oliver wave your hands really fast.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
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
Let me repeat the source was another star. Waving your hands does not change reality.

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
That has absolutely nothing to with a the Sun not having been a supernova. Or rather if the Sun was the supernova then where did the angular momentum come from in the solar system. It was the rotation of the cloud that caused it to form a disc as it collapsed. Obviously that concept escaped you.

Now I may not be correct on this but I believe the sun also rotates in the same direction
The Sun and planets came from the same cloud. So they have same angle of rotation.

What are the odds against something like that?
One hundred percent. Its conservation of angular momentum. Clearly you don't have a clue. Here are some clues.>>
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2011
Wrong again Ethelred, the sun is well within the limits of a neutron star. The typical neutron star is between 1.4 to 3 solar masses. Don't forget the sun (former neutron star) has been blowing off mass in the form of solar wind for 4.5 to 5 billion years.
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2011
Quote from Ethelred: "That has absolutely nothing to with a the Sun not having been a supernova. Or rather if the Sun was the supernova then where did the angular momentum come from in the solar system. It was the rotation of the cloud that caused it to form a disc as it collapsed. Obviously that concept escaped you."

You do have a minor point here. And I suppose the remenants of the heavy elements created by a near by supernove just happen to have the same angular monentum as that gas cloud.
That is just more wishful thinking. The supernova-neutron star-sun follows a logical scenario without any wishful thinking or add-ons.

Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2011
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.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
http://www.space....ess.html

http://hubblesite...ets-form

http://en.wikiped...r_System

http://en.wikiped...pothesis

Which mentions some questions about some of the details and the next link is a proposal which covers some of those questions.

http://www.scient...net-grow

And these recent physorg article shows a barred spiral fitting the above proposal.

http://www.physor...ets.html

http://www.physor...rms.html

A discussion of Oliver's Iron Sun theory, which he actually waffles on between iron and neutron, he has lately been emphasizing the pulsar idea with an iron mantle instead of an iron sun.

http://curious.as...mber=673
>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2011
A supernova origin of our solar system can also explain why the sun put our less energy billions of years than it does today.
That is a guess based on the Standard model of the Sun.

The neutron core was not fully decayed then, it more than likely is today.
Or its just because we think the Sun was cooler in the past based on the standard model. There isn't any actual evidence that the Sun was 30 percent cooler its part of the model that does NOT have a neutron star in the Sun.

It is nice to see that you have read ONE of the links. Have you read Oliver's paper yet? I did. Have you read any of the others links. I did. I even checked that link in your profile. Is that handwaving yours?

Ethelred
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2011
Ethelred, I am well aware of the current theory of a collapsing gas cloud and how it gains rotation. What I have one problem with is that I am not aware of any collapsing gas cloud with asteroid size chunk of heavy element in them. Now I am sure there are some and I CERTAINLY do not rule out planet systems forming by this method.
But I think it is MUCH more likely our solar system formed by a supernova-neutron star decaying into our sun method. It describes things better than happen-stance supernova in our vicinity. It is too beautiful to just dismiss it without facts! I have not heard any from you yet.

yyz
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Pressue 2, it is abundantly evident that your knowledge of solar physics is sadly lacking and I fail to see how this continued discourse might at least broaden your outlook on the matter. The paper I referenced was in regards to your earlier statement concerning "...a common source to seed gas clouds instead of some random heavy elements from some distant supernova.", to paraphrase your statement.

Instead you make some non sequitur statement about the rotation of the planets being lined up with the parent star, which in no way is relevant to the discussion on cloud seeding of heavy elements by supernovae. If you have something relevant to add to the cloud seeding issue, I'm all ears (and would appreciate any legitimate refs).

Otherwise I leave you to the mercy of Ethelred. May the FSM have pity on your soul. :)
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
YYZ, I have not stated that the seeding of a cloud of gas with heavy elements from a nearby supernova is not a viable explanation. It is just not the best explanation.
One big problem with seeded gas cloud is in its condensation, most if not nearly all the heavy elements would have ended up in the sun. When things condense the separate by weight.
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
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.

I am still waiting for Ethelred's answer, I would like to hear yours also YYZ.
I neither of you can answer this question YOU cannot rule out the decay of neutron stars!
yyz
4 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
@bluehigh,

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?

How about these related studies:

http://arxiv.org/...11v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/...59v1.pdf

http://www.lpi.us...1409.pdf

(Oliver ought to get a kick out of that last paper)

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

yyz
4 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
Pressure2,

Got any peer-reviewed refs outside of Oliver & Co. papers to back up your claims, are are you just opining?
yyz
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
@bluehigh:

Here are two additional pieces of evidence supporting supernova enrichment of the protosolar nebula that I neglected to mention above:

http://arxiv.org/...73v1.pdf

http://www.scienc...78.short
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
YYZ: Your silence is deafening on my neutron decay question.
By your silence am I to take it you agree it is possible for a neutron star to decay?
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
YYZ: I cannot quote any peer reviews, but don't take that as evidence that my view of neutron star decay and our solar system origin is wrong. A thousand years ago almost anyone that could write would give you a peer review of a flat earth.
yyz
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
Your beef with neutron star decay was with Eth, not me. Please reread my prior posts and direct your responses accordingly. Eth already responded to your spurious (and unreferenced) claims that neutron stars are NOT observed to decay (and backed his claims with references, something you seen strangely averse to, I might add).

Why not study up on subject in which you apparently have little practical knowledge. Like here, for starters: http://www.astro....tar.html
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
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?


Gritschneder et al ignore the same experimental observations that leaders of the US National Academy of Sciences ignored since 1975:

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

At the birth of the Solar System [1-6]:

a. All primordial He was trapped in a carbon matrix with "strange Xe" from the outer layer of the supernova;

b. No primordial He was trapped in rocky minerals with "normal Xe" from the central part of the supernova;

c. Thus, the Galileo probe found "strange Xe" in Jupiter's He-rich atmosphere as predicted in 1983 [7]; and

d. The planet Mars and FeS inclusions of diverse meteorites contain "normal Xe", like the Earth [8,9]

References:

1. "Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases:
The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements",
Trans MO Acad Sci 9, 104-122 (1975)

2. To be cont
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2011
2. "Xenon record of the early solar system", Nature 262, 28-32 (1976)

www.nature.com/na...8a0.html

3. "Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977)

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

4. "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)

www.nature.com/na...5a0.html

5. "The enigma of helium and anomalous xenon," Icarus 41, 312-315 (1980)

6. "Heterogeneity of isotopic and elemental compositions in meteorites: Evidence of local synthesis of the elements ",
Geokhimiya (12) 1776-1801 (1981) [In Russian]

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

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

8. "Terrestrial-type xenon in sulfides of the Allende
meteorite", Geochemical Journal 30, 17-30 (1996)

www.terrapub.co.j...0017.PDF

barakn
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
No, the Galileo probe didn't find "strange Xe." Nice try.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
5. "The enigma of helium and anomalous xenon," Icarus 41, 312-315 (1980)

www.sciencedirect...80900147

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

9. Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics 33, A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

10. "The Sun's origin, composition and source of energy", 1041, 32nd LPSC (March 12-16, 2001) LPI Contribution 1080

www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf

11. "Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections", 1033, 36th LPSC (March 14-18, 2005)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...1033.pdf
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
This table [1] and these experimental data [2] first showed fresh supernova material at the birth of the solar system.

1. Decay products of extinct elements:

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

2. "Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites", Nature 240, 99-101 (1972)

www.omatumr.com/a...ites.pdf

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

"Strange xenon" accompanied all of the primordial helium in Jupiter and in carbon-rich inclusions of primitive meteorites (diamonds and graphite) at the birth of the solar system.

That link of "strange xenon" will all primordial helium

http://www.omatum...Data.htm

has been ignored by leaders of the space science community since 1975.
yyz
4 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2011
Pressure2:

"YYZ, I have not stated that the seeding of a cloud of gas with heavy elements from a nearby supernova is not a viable explanation."

"It is just not the best explanation."

Then kindly provide your relevant peer-reviewed source(s) that support that statement, as others here have done so. Mere hand-waiving and obfuscation of the issues at hand does nothing to bolster your assertions. Let's see some real evidence of your claims for other interested readers to critically evaluate.
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
YYZ: New ideas do not have peer reviews, the decaying of neutron stars is and idea I have never read about anywhere.
I have name several types of evidence that all fit very nicely into the supernova-neutron star's-decaying into stars like our sun. But you chose to ignore them.
Let me list them again: The arrangement of heavy to light elements from the center out, just like all explosions. The rotation of all the mass in the system, angular momentum is conserved. The lower output of energy from our sun in earlier times, there was the remnants of neutron star early in our sun's life. I have explain how the mass of our sun fits very nicely into the mass of neutron stars.
continued - - - -
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
Now I have explained how a neutron star can decay inspite of its gravitation pressure. It is NOT pressure that stops neutrons from decaying.
It is people like Ethelred and (possibly) you that claim a neutron star cannot decay. And to prove to you and everyone else that they can decay I ask the question about the decay of neutrons in long 1/2 life radioactive isotopes.
Apparent Ethelred can't answer that question and I don't think you can either.
You are putting way to much weight on peer reviews. There is a time period when nearly everyone else is wrong before a radical new idea is accepted, and that can take decades or even centuries.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
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.


The results of measurements on diverse meteorites and planets are given in manuscripts cited above.
yyz
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
"I have name several types of evidence that all fit very nicely into the supernova-neutron star's-decaying into stars like our sun"

So where did the star that went supernova, turn into a neutron star, and decay into our sun come from. And the star before that, ad infinitum. You need a star to go SN to create another star or has that escaped you.

"New ideas do not have peer reviews, the decaying of neutron stars is and idea I have never read about anywhere."

In other words, your just making it up as you go along, based on your years of training in physics and astronomy? This is no proof. This is wholly you conjecture. And your're fully welcome to it, misguided as has been amply illustrated by others on this thread (downranking of my posts by oliver don't count, of course).

Just don't try to foist your beliefs as facts (they're unsupported conjecture), especially when you present no hard evidence to back up your claims, despite ample requests for such evidence.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
you present no hard evidence to back up your claims,


Measurements at the University of Chicago provided the "hard evidence" that you 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?

Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
YYZ: You should apply the same statements to the presently accepted theory about how our solar system form. It is more hap-hazard than mine.

Quote YYZ: "So where did the star that went supernova, turn into a neutron star, and decay into our sun come from. And the star before that, ad infinitum. You need a star to go SN to create another star or has that escaped you."

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 into a large enough quantity and under the intense gravitational pressure of the core neutron star it starts fusing again.
continued - - -
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
The second life of a star with planets now, OURS!
yyz
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2011
"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?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
YYZ: NO!
yyz
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2011
"The neutrons on the surface of this neutron star, now only slightly larger than our sun..."

Again, a 1.4 Solar mass neutron star has a radius of ~10km: http://www.astro....r/ns.gif

Is this beyond your comprehension level?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2011
YYZ: Most people would know what I was referring to, mass. Of course you are not looking discuss anything intelligently or you would not be bating. You would try learning some new like why would a neutron in a long 1/2 life nucleus all of a sudden decay for no apparent reason. There is a reason but it is "beyond your comprehension level".
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2011
"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?


What "First star?" The universe is cyclic and infinite!

No Big Bang. No first star. No magic.

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

http://journalofc...102.html

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
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2011
So, bluehigh, what specifically are your objections to the notion that a supernova seeded the protosolar nebula with heavy elements. Any reputable refs?


Crikey YYZ .. I missed most of this conversation. Probably thought you were just a bum chum of one of the naysayers around here. Tell you what, out of respect, a bit later after work (this effing piezoelectric gas flow sensor won't fit in the damn tube and the techs are shaking heads - aahhhh), I will have a closer read of what was said and get back to you.

omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2011
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


Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
Oliver if you quite ignoring this then I will look.

You insist there is such a thing as neutron repulsion. You insist it is strong enough to stop the formation of black holes, not just stellar black holes but ALL black holes no matter what the size. Also it you claim it is long ranged enough to sunder galaxies. Though you refuse to answer any question about its actual strength or range those claims make it clear that it MUST be more powerful than gravity per unit of mass even if the mass is mostly hydrogen atoms as we can see makes up most the mass in the in the Universe, based on your denial of Dark Matter that is.

It really doesn't require a great deal of effort to notice that there is a severe problem with that set of claims. They make galaxies, stars, even neutron stars, planets and pretty much everything held together by gravity impossible.>>

Please explain this contradiction of reality that is an inevitable conclusion based on your own claims for Neutron Repulsion.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
After all Oliver you have been ignoring my questions for two years now and that specific one for weeks. Why do you think things are a one way street. If I deal with those links, which I am fully capable of, it is highly unlikely that you do anything except ignore me as you do nearly every time.

So deal with the above as it the flaw isn't going away just because you ignore it.

I got more unanswered questions. But I will save till after you deal with this one, at which point I will deal with your latest attempt to make reality go away.

This sort of refusal to deal with previous questions and demand answers that you will also ignore is what has got you banned from one site after another. Of course on Physorg.com's sister site Physicsforum.com you didn't even last that long. Five increasingly rude posts masquerading as polite and you were history. I suppose you think they took a bribe from Al Gore.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
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.
For which there is no evidence that this has or could occur. Not as you state anyway.

The neutrons on the surface of this neutron star, now only slightly larger than our sun, decay into hydrogen.
First they aren't on the surface they are under a layer of degenerate matter. Second they can't decay because
The pressure that caused them to become neutrons is still there to force them back into being neutrons.

And there is the quantum mechanical problem of there being no open energy levels for the electrons.

To see a discussion of this you can go to this site. Oliver has been banned there.
http://www.bautfo...e-stable
>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
The asteroid size chunks of heavy elements form the earth and the other planets over millions of years.
Only there are no such chunks. The stuff started as a gas plasma not chunks. There MIGHT be remaining planets from before the explosion. There might even be enough gas for new planets to form as has been seen in few cases. But that is not from 'chunks'.

Only catch is the neutron star in those known cases is still a neutron star and shows no signs of magically transforming into something else.

During these millions of years the hydrogen builds up on surface
Can't as the neutrons are not on the surface and can't decay. BUT lets pretend that somehow, in defiance of physics, the neutrons decay and the hydrogen magically is transported through the degenerate iron and reaches the surface. Then what happens.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
It is subjected to about 3 billion gravities, thus it too is degenerate and can not form a photosphere. Now it piles up in a high density degenerate state UNTIL it goes BOOOMM, as has been seen on White Dwarfs which have much lower surface gravities. When that happens on a white dwarf the result is a Type 1 supernova. This apparently destroys the white dwarf. With a neutron star the hydrogen wouldn't be able to build up as much before going boom so they don't seem to get destroyed.

And here is a question for you. What happened to your previous incarnation as QUESTION? Your stopped posting under that name in May.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Ethelred: I did not stop posting as Question, I was BLOCKED from posting. I have been blocked under another user name also.

As for your claim that neutrons cannot decay because of the pressure of 3 billion gravitys on the surface of neutron stars, the pressure in the nucleus is 10 to the 38 power times greater than the gravitational force. So unless my math is way off, I would say there is NO comparison between the two. But some how neutrons keep decaying inside nuclei.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
I was BLOCKED from posting.
I figured that. That is not blocked. That is BANNED. And idiot posts like that one could be the reason. But I doubt it because it was no more lame than Oliver's evasions.

the pressure in the nucleus is 10 to the 38 power times greater than the gravitational force.
Nonsense. Its three BILLION gravities at the surface. Go read the links on neutron stars.

So unless my math is way off,
Yes. Gravity is cumulative.

But some how neutrons keep decaying inside nuclei.
That is not under 3 billion Gs. And even then only when there is a room, energetically for the electrons. Which there isn't in a neutron star.

Read the links. Its about time you did that.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2011
Ethelred, how 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?
Sure the force of gravity is cumulative and that is one of the reason I mention the decay of SURFACE neutrons.
True, there isn't room for energetic electons IN a neutron star but there is on the surface.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
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?
Because that is how the neutrons in neutron stars are formed. The force of gravity is so strong in mere white dwarfs that the 10 to 38, which is electro-magnetism, you mention is overwhelmed and matter becomes degenerate. We know this happens we can see white dwarfs.

With a neutron star gravity is so powerful that not only do the electron shellscollapse but the electrons no longer have any place to be except in the neutrons

Gravity is cumulative EM is not. Nor is the strong force. This is purely a matter of you not wanting to deal with the evidence. Much like saying you were blocked when you were banned.

Read the link to the forum I posted. Its a bit thick but it covers all this. The key though that if there can neutron stars, and the evidence is that they exist then that 10 to 38 is not enough.

Ethelred
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2011
LaViolette has just commented on an earlier GRB 110328A:

http://www.physor...ion.html

http://www.physor...ent.html

predicted to dissipate within weeks, but still going strong over seven months later. He maintains that this event still maintains the energy characteristics consistent with quasars.

http://starburstf...g/?p=186

I look forward to the explanations...

yyz
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2011
"He maintains that this event still maintains the energy characteristics consistent with quasars."

So what? Who cares about the opinions of a known crank, besides yourself? Where is LaVs peer-reviewed work on GRB 110328A? Nonexistent, I presume.

I see in his blog LaV misstates Bloom's mention of blazar-like time variability and maintains that his statement backs up LaVs claims that this is an QSO phenomenon.

[Bloom's original quote: "We also note an analogy of the reported behavior to blazar activity, in that highly variable gamma-ray and (non-thermal) X-ray emission is accompanied by (presumably) non-thermal long-wavelength emission (radio and sub-mm)."( http://grblog.org...GCN11847 ). Note Bloom was referring to the similarity in the time variations of the various emissions as being similar to what is seen in blazars, not the mechanism(s) themselves.]

"predicted to dissipate within weeks..."

Newer work suggests otherwise: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3568


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.