Exiled stars explode far from home

June 4, 2015 by Robert Sanders
Exiled stars explode far from home
Artist's concept of a Type Ia supernova exploding in the region between galaxies in a large cluster of galaxies, one of which is visible at the left. Credit: Dr. Alex H Parker, NASA and the SDSS

Sharp images obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope confirm that three supernovae discovered several years ago exploded in the dark emptiness of intergalactic space, having been flung from their home galaxies millions or billions of years earlier.

Most are found inside galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars, one of which might explode per century per galaxy.

These lonely supernovae, however, were found between galaxies in three large clusters of several thousand galaxies each. The stars' nearest neighbors were probably 300 light years away, nearly 100 times farther than our sun's nearest stellar neighbor, Proxima Centauri, 4.24 light years distant.

Such rare solitary supernovae provide an important clue to what exists in the vast empty spaces between galaxies, and can help astronomers understand how galaxy clusters formed and evolved throughout the history of the universe.

The solitary worlds reminded study leader Melissa Graham, a University of California, Berkeley, postdoctoral fellow and avid sci-fi fan, of the fictional star Thrial, which, in the Iain Banks novel Against a Dark Background, lies a million light years from any other star. One of its inhabited planets, Golter, has a nearly starless night sky.

Any planets around these intracluster stars – all old and compact stars that exploded in what are called Type Ia supernovae – were no doubt obliterated by the explosions, but they, like Golter, would have had a night sky depleted of bright stars, Graham said. The density of intracluster stars is about one-millionth what we see from Earth.

Exiled stars explode far from home
Animated GIF contrasting the supernova as seen in 2009 by the CFHT and the sharper image obtained in 2013 by the Hubble Space Telescope. Credit: Melissa Graham, CFHT and HST

"It would have been a fairly dark background indeed," she said, "populated only by the occasional faint and fuzzy blobs of the nearest and brightest cluster galaxies."

Graham and her colleagues – David Sand of Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Dennis Zaritsky of the University of Arizona in Tucson and Chris Pritchet of the University of Victoria in British Columbia – will report their analysis of the three stars in a paper to be presented Friday, June 5, at a conference on supernovae at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. Their paper has also been accepted by the Astrophysical Journal.

Clusters of thousands of galaxies

The new study confirms the discovery between 2008 and 2010 of three apparently hostless supernovae by the Multi-Epoch Nearby Cluster Survey using the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. The CFHT was unable to rule out a faint galaxy hosting these supernovae. But the sensitivity and resolution of images from the Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys are 10 times better and clearly show that the supernovae exploded in empty space, far from any galaxy. They thus belong to a population of solitary stars that exist in most if not all clusters of galaxies, Graham said

While stars and supernovae typically reside in galaxies, galaxies situated in massive clusters experience gravitational forces that wrench away about 15 percent of the stars, according to a recent survey. The clusters have so much mass, though, that the displaced stars remain gravitationally bound within the sparsely populated intracluster regions.

Once dispersed, these lonely stars are too faint to be seen individually unless they explode as supernovae. Graham and her colleagues are searching for bright supernovae in intracluster space as tracers to determine the population of unseen stars. Such information provides clues about the formation and evolution of large scale structures in the universe.

One of the four supernovae (top, 2009) may be part of a dwarf galaxy or globular cluster visible on the 2013 HST image (bottom). Credit: Melissa Graham, CFHT and HST

"We have provided the best evidence yet that intracluster stars truly do explode as Type Ia supernovae," Graham said, "and confirmed that hostless supernovae can be used to trace the population of intracluster stars, which is important for extending this technique to more distant clusters."

Graham and her colleagues also found that a fourth exploding star discovered by CFHT appears to be inside a red, round region that could be a small galaxy or a globular cluster. If the supernova is in fact part of a globular , it marks the first time a supernova has been confirmed to explode inside these small, dense clusters of fewer than a million stars. All four supernovae were in sitting about a billion from Earth.

"Since there are far fewer stars in , only a small fraction of the supernovae are expected to occur in globular clusters," Graham said. "This might be the first confirmed case, and may indicate that the fraction of stars that explode as supernovae is higher in either low-mass or globular clusters."

Graham said that most theoretical models for Type Ia supernovae involve a binary star system, so the exploding would have had a companion throughout their lifetimes.

"This is no love story, though," she added. "The companion was either a lower-mass white dwarf that eventually got too close and was tragically fragmented into a ring that was cannibalized by the primary star, or a regular star from which the primary white dwarf star stole sips of gas from its outer layers. Either way, this transfer of material caused the primary to become unstably massive and explode as a Type Ia supernova."

Explore further: Short, sharp shocks let slip the stories of supernovae

More information: "Confirmation of Hostless Type Ia Supernovae Using Hubble Space Telescope Imaging," Melissa Graham et al., 2015, to appear in the Astrophysical Journal, arxiv.org/abs/1505.03407

"Intracluster Supernovae in the Multi-Epoch Nearby Cluster Survey," D. J. Sand et al., 2011 March 10, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 729, No. 2, 142, dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/142

Related Stories

Supernova ignition surprises scientists

May 20, 2015

Scientists have captured the early death throes of supernovae for the first time and found that the universe's benchmark explosions are much more varied than expected.

VLT discovers new kind of globular star cluster

May 13, 2015

Observations with ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile have discovered a new class of 'dark' globular star clusters around the giant galaxy Centaurus A. These mysterious objects look similar to normal clusters, but contain ...

Chemical fingerprints of ancient supernovae found

March 23, 2015

A Carnegie-based search of nearby galaxies for their oldest stars has uncovered two stars in the Sculptor dwarf galaxy that were born shortly after the galaxy formed, approximately 13 billion years ago. The unusual chemical ...

Measuring galaxy evolution with globular clusters

March 23, 2015

Globular clusters are gravitationally bound ensembles of stars, as many as a million stars in some cases, grouped in roughly spherical clusters with diameters as small as only tens of light-years. Globular clusters are typically ...

Recommended for you

Hubble catches a transformation in the Virgo constellation

December 9, 2016

The constellation of Virgo (The Virgin) is especially rich in galaxies, due in part to the presence of a massive and gravitationally-bound collection of over 1300 galaxies called the Virgo Cluster. One particular member of ...

Khatyrka meteorite found to have third quasicrystal

December 9, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers from the U.S. and Italy has found evidence of a naturally formed quasicrystal in a sample obtained from the Khatyrka meteorite. In their paper published in the journal Scientific Reports, ...

Scientists sweep stodgy stature from Saturn's C ring

December 9, 2016

As a cosmic dust magnet, Saturn's C ring gives away its youth. Once thought formed in an older, primordial era, the ring may be but a mere babe – less than 100 million years old, according to Cornell-led astronomers in ...

31 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bigbangcon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
The findings of these supernova in the intergalactic space (without a mother galaxy) seem authentic enough; but the explanations provided (no doubt from Big Bang perspective usual for official cosmology) is lacking in substance.
Science fiction aside; if these supernova are from an errand lone star or globular cluster, how could they be the lone sharks in the intergalactic space without being ejected from a mother galaxy? How the lone star found extra mass to turn in to supernovae? Poor old Chip Arp; may his soul enjoy some vindication!
JeanTate
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
Studies of the intracluster medium have turned up significant populations of unattached stars. This is not at all unexpected, as galaxy mergers/interactions can be seen to 'liberate' many stars. Globular clusters are a bit more mysterious; certainly some have been found a very long way from what should be their 'parent', and others are almost certainly the cores of small galaxies that have been 'stripped' by close encounters with more massive galaxies (some of these are known in our own Local Group).

Re "How the lone star found extra mass to turn in to supernovae?": a very considerable proportion of stars are binaries (or more); as each star in a binary evolves, it can transfer mass to its companion (especially for close binaries, which are quite common). If the 'receiving' star is a white dwarf, it may become a nova, or supernova.

Re "no doubt from Big Bang perspective": why not read the paper to find out? The observations and resuults are likely independent of the BB
Bigbangcon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
@ Jean Tate:
Like few other "black" magic; collision/merger magic wand can be used anytime, anywhere and everywhere; so is no explanation at all and hence is useless for an understanding of the phenomena in the cosmos.
How many collisions/mergers can you expect in a universe that originated at a point, underwent unimaginable super-inflation in billion billionth of a second, is still expanding and now even accelerating? Gravity under such circumstances is not likely to bind even few particles supposedly formed, not to speak of vast galaxies, clusters, super clusters etc. and in addition undergo hectic collisions for us to marvel at!
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
@Bigbangcon: sorry, but I think your last comment has taken you from territory where DIRECT EVIDENCE is king, to one where intuitions based on (gross) misunderstanding of contemporary cosmology and astrophysics rules. For example:

"collision/merger" is not a "magic wand"; start with the (freely available) images from SDSS, as were classified by over 100,000 citizen scientists in Galaxy Zoo. Many thousand interacting/merging systems were identified, you think they're all mirages?

"a universe that originated at a point": no cosmological models assume that.

"Gravity under such circumstances is not likely to bind even few particles supposedly formed, not to speak of vast galaxies, clusters, super clusters etc. and in addition undergo hectic collisions for us to marvel at!": and yet many such "hectic collisions" are observed ... problem for consensus cosmology? or for your (mis)understanding of it?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
The findings of these supernova in the intergalactic space (without a mother galaxy) seem authentic enough; but the explanations provided (no doubt from Big Bang perspective usual for official cosmology) is lacking in substance.
Science fiction aside; if these supernova are from an errand lone star or globular cluster, how could they be the lone sharks in the intergalactic space without being ejected from a mother galaxy? How the lone star found extra mass to turn in to supernovae? Poor old Chip Arp; may his soul enjoy some vindication!


Simply, because over time the errant stars (and all stars) grow from within from the underlying elementals entering our universe from deep there-within the cores. It ain't rocket science. Just takes a different, non-fanciful, evidence-based perspective.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2015
@JeanTate
I answered your post here

http://phys.org/n...ers.html

you should consider this
right-click the name of any poster, then select "open link in new tab"
the link goes to their profile page

if you go to the recently commented line where there is a link that says "all >>" and click it, it goes to the last 20 posts or so and shows the ratings of the profile poster as well as who is rating the post

you can mostly assume anyone 2.0 & below a troll- out to goad you into an outburst
also, there are some people who bulk down-vote others based upon personal reasons (if you disagree with them on physics, science or their post, expect a downvote, etc)

you see this a lot with religious and pseudoscience posters
so you have to be aware who the science posters are

simple method: always ask for links to validate a claim
always make sure said link is a reputable science site etc
don't accept engineers data on astrophysics (eu)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
Simply, because over time the errant stars (and all stars) grow from within from the underlying elementals entering our universe from deep there-within the cores.
@tux
and because you have a
different, non-fanciful, evidence-based perspective.
you can provide empirical evidence and studies which demonstrate (as well as measure and validate) the claim that stars grow from within by elements "entering our universe from deep there-within the cores" [sic]

by all means, those links, if they are reputable, will be interesting to see

or are you just trolling again?
Bigbangcon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
@ Jean Tate and Tuxford
Merger/collision is quite possible under the perspective of an infinite and eternal universe but not in the BB perspective. A dialectical perspective can explain many of the cosmic phenomena (evolution, structure, GRB's etc.) based on quantum dynamics alone without any "black" magic or the God of the gap explanations. References in another thread.
Just consider the recent case of the "Cosmic Bird" - a purported collision of three galaxies by official cosmology. Even after a three way (!) collision; the galaxies are moving away from one another with velocities close to the few percent of the speed of light!
JeanTate
5 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
@Bigbangcon:
Merger/collision is quite possible under ... but not in the BB perspective.


An opinion, yes; evidence? There are now many dozen+ simulations based on "the BB perspective" (and whose code and results have been published); as far as I know, they all show galaxy mergers/collisions, and at a rate ~the same as what is observed. If you have references to papers which report simulation results with no galaxy mergers/collisions, would you please cite them?

A dialectical perspective can explain many of the cosmic phenomena (evolution, structure, GRB's etc.) based on quantum dynamics alone without any "black" magic or the God of the gap explanations.


Pseudoscience?
Just consider the recent case of the "Cosmic Bird" - a purported collision of three galaxies by official cosmology. Even after a three way (!) collision; the galaxies are moving away from one another with velocities close to the few percent of the speed of light!

Reference(s)?
Bigbangcon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
Simulation is the trump card for modern official science! You can simulate anything that you have in your mind, simply because it is YOU who sets the parameters!

I do not have the references at hand to give you in an instant.You can find many of the references with a little search by the topic. For the "Cosmic Bird" for example (you should have known this if you are an astrophysicists) I found many references with a little search: https://www.googl...s_rd=ssl

If you think it is Pseudoscience, then it is useless for you to engage in any discussion with me and for me as well! Please look in the science section of the Guardian, specially in the blog "Life and Physics" by Jon Butterworth (head of the British team in the LHC) and comments by "futurehuman". This will be the end of my postings for now.
JeanTate
5 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
Simulation is the trump card for modern official science! You can simulate anything that you have in your mind, simply because it is YOU who sets the parameters!

So, direct observation is out (galaxies are observed to be colliding/merging), and simulations too are out (to show consistency with observations) ... what is left? Blind belief in an idea, irrespective?

I do not have the references at hand to give you in an instant.You can find many of the references with a little search by the topic. For the "Cosmic Bird" for example (you should have known this if you are an astrophysicists)

Thanks. I'll await the results of your search(es). It's not that I cannot find "cosmic bird"; rather I cannot find "Even after a three way (!) collision; the galaxies are moving away from one another with velocities close to the few percent of the speed of light!" (Yes, I should have been clearer).
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
If you think it is Pseudoscience, then it is useless for you to engage in any discussion with me and for me as well!

Did you miss the question mark?
yyz
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
"Just consider the recent case of the "Cosmic Bird" - a purported collision of three galaxies by official cosmology. Even after a three way (!) collision; the galaxies are moving away from one another with velocities close to the few percent of the speed of light!"

The "Bird" galaxy (IRAS 19115-2124) is a galaxy merger consisting of 3 galaxies ("Body","Heart" & "Head) along with tidal tails, plumes & debris("Tail", "Wings"): http://cdn.eso.or...755b.jpg

A 2008 study of this system revealed no components with a velocity exceeding (+/-)400 km/s from the average velocity of the system(systemic velocity). Certainly no components are moving close to a "few percent of the speed of light" with respect to each other. This seems to be a bound system that will likely transform itself into an elliptical galaxy sometime in the future. Details of the study can be found here:

http://fr.arxiv.o...708.2365
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
@Bigbangcon: sorry, but I think your last comment has taken you from territory where DIRECT EVIDENCE is king, to one where intuitions based on (gross) misunderstanding of contemporary cosmology and astrophysics rules.
If I read "Bigbangcon" correctly, his/her point is that the collisions as observed are a problem for the BB Inflation-Accelerating expansion hypotheses, not that those collisions aren't observed. According to conventional BB model, expansion becomes dominant over gravity from 300-million light-years space distances between massive features such as galaxies. If so, it would seem logical according to that model that such collisions (and other recently discovered 'unexpected' and 'problematic' massive aggregations of energy-matter/galaxies feature in regions of observable universe) would not be possible if the conventional model BB/Inflation/Expansion claims are 'true' as claimed so far by mainstream). Have you addressed his point as such? :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
PS: JeanTate, if/when you do address his/her point, please bear in mind the latest astronomy news that 'standard candles' are not as standard as previously assumed, and hence that any accelerated expansion claims based on prior supernovae 'standard candle' interpretations no longer hold. Add to that the recent Planck-Bicep2 joint results confirming that CMB interpretations do not support BB etc hypotheses/claims either. That will narrow down the claims to 'evidence' for interpreting the mergers/collisions as being 'consistent' with BB etc. Thanks. Good luck. :)
JeanTate
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
@RealityCheck: I do not intend to try to put words into Bigbangcon's mouth, nor try to intuit what he (she?) wrote. May I suggest that you do the same?

Have you addressed his point as such?

I do not know, and have no way of knowing, until she replies.

If so, it would seem logical according to that model that such collisions [...] would not be possible if the conventional model BB/Inflation/Expansion claims are 'true'

I guess it might seem logical to some; however, as hundreds of papers make clear, such logic is no substitute for rigorous analyses, based on robust data etc. Would you like some references?

the latest astronomy news that 'standard candles' are not as standard as previously assumed

Evidence?

and hence that any accelerated expansion claims based on prior supernovae 'standard candle' interpretations no longer hold

Sorry, but that's a logical fallacy; I've no doubt that you can see why. (to be continued)
JeanTate
5 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
@RealityCheck:
Add to that the recent Planck-Bicep2 joint results confirming that CMB interpretations do not support BB etc hypotheses/claims either.

News to me; evidence?

That will narrow down the claims to 'evidence' for interpreting the mergers/collisions as being 'consistent' with BB etc.

Seems to me like a non sequitur ... I think you may have - rather too blithely - skipped over a great many links in the logic chain ...
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)
Evidence?
It's been all over the science news. I have and must assume that anyone interested in this field will have read all the relevant recent mainstream discoveries/reports etc in this field.

Are you unaware of the astronomy/cosmology news items reporting recent mainstream observations which confirm that 'standard candles' supernovae used in Cosmology distance/acceleration claims are NOT as 'standard' as previously assumed?

Are you unaware of the joint Planck-Biceps2 reanalysis of CMB observations which proved that CMB signals subject to a mixmaster of all sorts of effects/causes across local and deep-far distant space reaches/processes on many scales?

If so, I haven't time to spare searching out the links now. I will trust to everyone doing their own due diligence.

PS: I said "If I read Bigbangcon correctly". I wasn't "putting words into his/her mouth". :) The point was clear to me IF I did read correctly. I can only ask if you saw it. Bye. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
PPS: JeanTate:
I guess it might seem logical to some; however, as hundreds of papers make clear, such logic is no substitute for rigorous analyses, based on robust data etc.
The same sort of "rigorous analyses" which produced the initial BICEP2 fiasco? Or the same "rigorous analysis' which saw the 'standard candle' assumptions/interpretations' get 'passed' by 'peer review' and the Nobel Committee? Or the same "rigorous analyses' which treated CMB data theory-biased assumption/interpretation as 'evidence for BB etc' which has now been finally shown to be not so rigorous after all, at all stages of the analyses/peer reviews etc?

Would you like some references?
What value 'references' which are self-referencing and based on the same flawed lines/processes which are even now being corrected by cosmology/astronomy mainstream, however slowly/late in the piece?

No thanks, I'll stick to scrupulously independent objective science based on reality not speculation. Cheers.
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
@RealityCheck:
Evidence?
It's been all over the science news. I have and must assume that anyone interested in this field will have read all the relevant recent mainstream discoveries/reports etc in this field.

I am somewhat familiar with these, but certainly have not read every report or paper! The 1k character limit forces me to be terse; sometimes I am too terse. This is one such time.

First, I want to know exactly which reports/papers you would cite re these two, if for no other reason than to reduce the chances of misunderstanding (due to relying on different sources).

Second, and more important: you make statements - opinions - concerning what the discoveries mean/imply/etc. Before exploring these, I need to make sure I understand the discoveries the same way you do.
I haven't time to spare searching out the links now

And that's fine ... perhaps when you do, we could continue?

Re Bigbangcon: yes, you're right (I should read more carefully)
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
@RealityCheck:
Would you like some references?

What value 'references' which are self-referencing and based on the same flawed lines/processes which are even now being corrected by cosmology/astronomy mainstream, however slowly/late in the piece?

No thanks, I'll stick to scrupulously independent objective science based on reality not speculation. Cheers.

OK, got it. End of discussion then.
Bigbangcon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
" ...Or the same "rigorous analyses' which treated CMB data theory-biased assumption/interpretation as 'evidence for BB etc' which has now been finally shown to be not so rigorous after all, at all stages of the analyses/peer reviews etc?"
@ RealityCheck: Thanks, you spoke for me as well about official cosmology. The culture and the illusion created by modern official scientists is that they are formally trained "experts" and only they have the right to speak with authority, because other "experts" exactly like them certify their validity! The whole edifice of "New Physics" is built on Einstein's subjective mathematical idealism and are "proved" by subjective experiments that only look for what they want to see! . Please see my comment as "futurehuman" in the Guardian article (and others in the archive under "futurehuman" for the last few years) :http://www.thegua...ollider. Thanks.
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
@Bigbangcon:
The whole edifice of "New Physics" is built on Einstein's subjective mathematical idealism and are "proved" by subjective experiments that only look for what they want to see!

I may be misunderstanding you, but what's subjective about the Pound-Rebka experiment (Pound&Rebka 1959, PhysRevLett 3, p439)? Plenty more such papers/experiments, of course, but may I start with this one?
Bigbangcon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
@ JeanTate: I appreciate your enthusiasm for a serious discussion, but I think you have too much of a technical approach. You cannot have a technical discussion in a forum where you have to count every character you type. To prove your "scientific" credential you demand a reference for everything!

Well, I am a scientist too, but my little experience in this forum tells me that people give their opinion based on the general (recent, important and historical) collective developments and on more or less philosophical basis. Of course, there are many specific cases which does not fit the general perception.

It should be apparent to you that, like "RealityCheck" I criticise the "speculative" nature of "New Physics" and question the validity of "self-referencing" and "group-think" conformity of modern official scientists and hence the general credibility of modern official physics in particular and official science in general. In addition, I have proposed some alternative approach.
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
@Bigbangcon: Thanks for your comments; among other things, they shape a context within which more meaningful dialog should be possible.
You cannot have a technical discussion in a forum where you have to count every character you type.

True, but what sort of discussion *can* we have in this forum? Also, perhaps we should point to other fora where a technical discussion should be possible?
To prove your "scientific" credential you demand a reference for everything!

Actually, I don't. It try to *ask* for references in circumstances where it seems to me there is a high likelihood of misunderstanding; for example, if someone is using a PR as a primary source, rather than a paper published in MNRAS (say).
It should be apparent to you that [...] I criticise the "speculative" nature of "New Physics" and question the validity of "self-referencing" and "group-think" conformity of modern official scientists
Cool! (to be continued)
JeanTate
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
(continued) May I ask, however, how can your ""speculative" nature of "New Physics"" be anything other than highly subjective (here in this forum)?

Also, how can one comment on your questioning "of "self-referencing" and "group-think" conformity of modern official scientists" without referring to specific examples (which will, almost certainly, have a technical component)?
Bigbangcon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
@ JeanTate : Of course I am subjective like anybody else when I make a statement - you have to be a "being" (a subject) first existing in a social milieu and their is a "subjective" content in all that you do. It is the "official physicists" who claim to be "objective" because they speak in the name of geometry, symmetry. "mathematical consistency", which are supposed to be impersonal (in my view secularized God and hence also subjective!)

Like probably many who comment here I only work in a specific field and cannot the involved in all the works I comment on!. We can only discuss the basis of the work done, the nature of the results obtained, the interpretation of the results in the light of existing (collective) knowledge etc. I am sort of a freelance astrophysicist/cosmologist and had some association with Chip Arp. This unfortunately, will be my last comment. If you wish to have further discussion, or on any aspect of my own publications, you can contact me by e-mail.
JeanTate
5 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2015
@Bigbangcon: OK, so farewell; it's been a pleasure dialoging (sp?) with you.

I was going to ask that you let us all, here in this forum, know when your paper, with your alternative approach, goes up on astro-ph, but then I realized it would be very hard to find any such 'notice' here. Instead, I'll keep an eye out for it (I am unusual, I think; I like to spend an hour or so each day on astro-ph, when I can); however, I may not notice any such there either (there are quite a few 'alternative approach' papers posted in astro-ph, by many different authors).
Taxtropel
not rated yet Jun 07, 2015
I for one welcome our new Imperial Overlords.
JeanTate
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2015
The whole edifice of "New Physics" is built on Einstein's subjective mathematical idealism and are "proved" by subjective experiments that only look for what they want to see!
- Bigbangcon
what's subjective about the Pound-Rebka experiment (Pound&Rebka 1959, PhysRevLett 3, p439)?
- me

Bigbangcon has said he will no longer post here, but readers may wonder what my reference is about.

Well, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity ("GR") has been tested in hundreds of ways, many of which are laboratory experiments, here on Earth; Pound-Rebka is just (an early) one.

Are any of these "subjective", as Bigbangcon seems to claim?

Judge for yourself; Clifford Will has written a series of nice reviews, all titled "The Confrontation Between General Relativity and Experiment". Here's the 2014 updated version: http://relativity...-2014-4/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2015
Clifford Will has written a series of nice reviews, all titled "The Confrontation Between General Relativity and Experiment". Here's the 2014 updated version: http://relativity...-2014-4/
@JeanTate
thanks for that paper, i am perusing it now!

as you know, the eu doesn't believe in gravity or GR/SR,
not sure about BBcon

just wait till you get to argue that point with reg mundy, the local pseudo-scientist who claims there is no gravity and everything is expansion but can't explain Tides, orbits, the fact that his mass dependent expansion would give a measurable visual experiment by observing proportional growth between similar size but different mass objects, and much more...

i would link those comments here but that can wait till he shows up

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.