Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Galaxies already had enough material to form planets and life in the early Universe!
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Yousuf Khan
May 19, 2012, 10:33:07 AM5/19/12
to
Baby galaxies grew up quickly
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
Quote:
> Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
Yousuf Khan
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
Quote:
> Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 10:47:39 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 9:33 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
first being generated in Population III Stars.
pete
May 19, 2012, 12:58:53 PM5/19/12
to
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> first being generated in Population III Stars.
Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> first being generated in Population III Stars.
http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-life-c-n-o-s-h-and-p-well-maybe-not-p/
--
pete
Chris.B
May 19, 2012, 1:43:06 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 6:58 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> > first being generated in Population III Stars.
>
> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>
> http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-lif...
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
> > first being generated in Population III Stars.
>
> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>
>
> --
> pete
Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
same hold true for an entire species?
What keeps them going when they know everything and have tried
everything? Would their will to live and reproduce keep going
indefinitely?
The human race is already showing signs of general dissatisfaction
with its lot. Apathy, drug, alcohol and food abuse is rife.
Mass escapism through virtual reality existence is now the norm for
many. Passive sport watching by proxy has replaced continuous tribal
warfare. Supporting (any) politics or religious faith is a game for
mugs. Neither has any useful answers except friction and strife. Big
money controls everything which matters.
Hard physical work is a rarity for the majority in many "advanced"
nations. The general populace preferring to import cheap labour to
carry out the menial tasks. Even at great personal risk to their own
health. Through obesity, apathy and almost total inactivity. The
birthrate is dropping almost everywhere. While the prison population
climbs everywhere.
The retail sector has reduced most shopping centres to a chain store
tedium. Hotels and holidays are uniformly presented globally. Products
and advertising have become uniformly boring. The Hollywood/Bollywood
conveyor belt has completely lost its inspiration. Vast fortunes are
spent playing "let's pretend" without any obvious grip on the most
basic reality. Individuality is no longer desirable except in role
playing, talentless entertainers vying for global attention in the
mutually corrupt and parasitic media.
Black boxes with minimalist decoration adorn our internationally
uniform homes. We seek further escape from reality by role playing the
past. Though antique collection or riding an old but immaculately
restored classic car or bike. Or taking luxury holidays in "backward"
countries.
We haven't been at this top of the intellectual tree for very long but
are already showing signs of chronic fatigue. The majority now spend
their entire lives sitting in front of a computer screen. Doing
utterly worthless tasks with regard to the continued existence of the
human race. How, on earth, are we going to be able to reinvent
ourselves now? Descent into anarchy and feuding warlords? We have that
already on our city streets but are powerless to change anything for
the better.
Yousuf Khan
May 19, 2012, 2:31:01 PM5/19/12
to
III stars were mostly 100 Msun+ behemoths, then likely they stopped at C
& O before they went pair-instability supernova. So those supernovas
wouldn't have produced the elements upto Fe.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
May 19, 2012, 2:33:51 PM5/19/12
to
On 19/05/2012 1:43 PM, Chris.B wrote:
> On May 19, 6:58 pm, pete<pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>
>> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>
>> http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-lif...
>>
>> --
>> pete
>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
The DNA gets repaired slightly with sexual reproduction.
> On May 19, 6:58 pm, pete<pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
>>> first being generated in Population III Stars.
>>
>> Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.
>>
>> http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/six-required-elements-for-lif...
>>
>> --
>> pete
>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
> What keeps them going when they know everything and have tried
> everything? Would their will to live and reproduce keep going
> indefinitely?
> The human race is already showing signs of general dissatisfaction
> with its lot. Apathy, drug, alcohol and food abuse is rife.
Bit of a stretch to link that to "tired and senile DNA".
Yousuf Khan
G=EMC^2
May 19, 2012, 2:27:49 PM5/19/12
to
years. Get the picture TreBert
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 3:11:46 PM5/19/12
to
our universe at 13.7 Gyr. End of Story!
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 3:15:56 PM5/19/12
to
of *all* the naturally occurring elements?
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:13:50 PM5/19/12
to
it is- the question is what is it that we are instantaneously seeing?
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 5:18:43 PM5/19/12
to
the tools yet.
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:21:19 PM5/19/12
to
technology does not change the physics. The motion does not change-
just the observation of the object itself. In the end, astronomically
we are nothing but a single point of observation- as parallax is
nearly null at this point in our evolution with respect to the rest of
the universe. Its because we haven't even put an accurate clock- even
on our nearest object- the moon. And no, mirrors are not clocks.
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:25:04 PM5/19/12
to
GogoJF
May 19, 2012, 5:23:07 PM5/19/12
to
wherever you peer.
Odysseus
May 19, 2012, 7:04:57 PM5/19/12
to
In article
<59dfa114-888e-4fe7...@p1g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
<snip>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
Unlikely in reality, as long as natural selection continues to
contribute negentropy, but for imagined fatigue on a larger scale see
J.G. Ballard's "The Voices of Time" (1960).
--
Odysseus
<59dfa114-888e-4fe7...@p1g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
<snip>
> Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
> errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
> same hold true for an entire species?
contribute negentropy, but for imagined fatigue on a larger scale see
J.G. Ballard's "The Voices of Time" (1960).
--
Odysseus
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 7:24:12 PM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 4:23 PM, GogoJF wrote:
>
> The early universe does not exist- only us and a developed universe
> wherever you peer.
Actually when we look out, we look back in time, because of the
>
> The early universe does not exist- only us and a developed universe
> wherever you peer.
finite speed of light.
We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.
Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
Alps and all those elephants trotting along. We are *actually
seeing the universe and the things in it behaving as they did
billions of years ago*".
Sam Wormley
May 19, 2012, 7:26:07 PM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 4:25 PM, GogoJF wrote:
>
> The universe we observe is all the same age.
>
> The universe we observe is all the same age.
Actually when we look out, we look back in time, because of the
finite speed of light.
We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.
Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
Alps and all those elephants trotting along. We are actually
finite speed of light.
We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.
Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
seeing the universe and the things in it behaving as they did
billions of years ago".
GogoJF
May 20, 2012, 5:21:02 PM5/20/12
to
telescopes faithful? A single optical image is not translated like
signals. The act of observing stars is a one-way operation not two-
way. The measurement of the "finite speed of light" is a two-way
measure. We have never placed a "clock" on the moon, sun, and stars
so how do we know that what we see is finitely measured?
Sam Wormley
May 20, 2012, 7:07:57 PM5/20/12
to
program provide precision distance measurement of the moon. The round
trip time is on the order of 2.6 seconds.
GogoJF
May 20, 2012, 7:31:47 PM5/20/12
to
GogoJF
May 20, 2012, 7:47:47 PM5/20/12
to
observer and all instruments he uses)- be the "effect" of observation?
Chris.B
May 21, 2012, 1:42:34 AM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 1:47 am, GogoJF <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could the "cause"- the internal workings the the human apparatus (the
> observer and all instruments he uses)- be the "effect" of observation?
Do we question the time it takes for the impact of a distant hammer to
> Could the "cause"- the internal workings the the human apparatus (the
> observer and all instruments he uses)- be the "effect" of observation?
finally reaches our ears?
The observer at the telescope is no different from the general waiting
for a messenger to arrive from the battle front. Nobody questions the
time it takes the runner to carry his message physically to the
commander's tent. The wise general might offer the use of his finest
horse to the messenger where greater distances are involved.
Given enough distance, from the battle front, light itself has exactly
the same problems in reaching the observer as does the messenger.
Light merely travels faster than a runner, horse or sound. So the
distances to achieve any delay are much greater. The speed of light is
as as perfectly defined as that of runners, horses and sound.
The only other alternative is to accept that we are all living in "The
Matrix" and imagining everything which happens to us. Not an easy
choice given our present ability to send message packets between every
single individual of the 7 billion known occupants. Give or take an
inevitable delay.
Yousuf Khan
May 21, 2012, 4:39:12 AM5/21/12
to
carbon and oxygen before going boom.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2012, 8:46:03 AM5/21/12
to
production, the production of free electrons and positrons in
the collision between atomic nuclei and energetic gamma rays,
reduces thermal pressure inside a supermassive star's core.
This pressure drop leads to a partial collapse, then greatly
accelerated burning in a runaway thermonuclear explosion which
blows the star completely apart without leaving a black hole
remnant behind.
However, you are forgetting r-process, s-process and even the
rp-process that occur in *all* supernovae explosions resulting
in nucleosynthesis of the element up through Uranium.
Yousuf Khan
May 21, 2012, 6:25:11 PM5/21/12
to
therefore the rp-process does not occur, since it requires 1E9 Kelvin
(http://is.gd/HTFJyq).
The s-processes is a slow neutron capture process, so it too isn't
really a candidate inside a pair-instability supernova.
The r-process might be occurring in a pair-instability supernova, but
it's hard to say since its core never contains iron whether the
r-process progresses upto the same level as other supernovas which blow
up after producing iron.
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
May 21, 2012, 7:41:27 PM5/21/12
to
Pair Instability Supernovae: Light Curves, Spectra, and Shock Breakout
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734..102K
> The supernovae they make can be remarkably energetic (up to ~1053 erg) and synthesize considerable amounts of radioactive isotopes.
A Super-Duper Supernova
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/78344612.html
> Spectra taken in August 2008 with the 10-meter Keck I telescope in Hawaii revealed that most of SN 2007bi's light was coming from the radioactive decay of nickel-56, which was synthesized in the explosion. The high luminosity means that the supernova ejected a vast quantity of mass, which is what theorists expect for a PISN. Gal-Yam and his colleagues report on this website that SN 2007bi "appears to be a clean example" of a PISN.
>
> "Multiple lines of evidence lead to the conclusion for a huge helium core (about 100 solar masses) and a very large amount of synthesized radioactive nickel," says team member Alex Filippenko (University of California, Berkeley), a leading supernova expert.
oriel36
May 22, 2012, 4:33:20 PM5/22/12
to
long before the rings of SN1987a were discovered and specifically the
two external rings with a smaller internal ring at an intersection.I
can't say I regret taking it out a copyright back in 1990 but the
world has changed since then with less and less of an interest in the
flow of information between terrestrial sciences and astronomy or visa
versa.
Whereas mathematicians traffic in 4 dimensions,I had a look at a prime
dimension - a geometry which reflects a lot of other individual
geometries and specifically the Phi proportion, a correspondence loved
by so many people who are close to nature,astronomy and terrestrial
sciences.As a Christian,there is no effort required in recognizing
Universal traits in individual traits and moving information around
between disciplines,it is how I got so far working planetary dynamics
into plate tectonics or the modifications to climate but finding
individuals who operate that way is easily the most difficult thing of
all.
It is fine being a 'supernova expert' after the fact but the original
work I did in 1990 on density/volume ratio in stars allied with
natural efficiency (hence the phi proportion) created the outlines of
an alternative way to look at stellar evolution and the creation of
individual solar systems - including our own.There is something lovely
about our own central star and so what if it is too early to say that
the elements found throughout our solar system have their origins in
our Sun at a different phase in its evolution - the geometry which
binds stellar evolution with all the myriad of individual geometries
on this magnificent planet indicate a geometrical E Pluribus Unum.
It is a private work now and that is how it will remain.
oriel36
May 23, 2012, 5:45:12 AM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 10:50 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is night and day difference between looking at a supernova as
the birth of a solar system as opposed to the death of a star and the
formative reasoning behind this did not emerge until years after I
worked on the external rings and the internal ring using a background
geometry that is found on Earth in abundance and especially the
geometries relating to the Phi proportion.It is the one area that I
have regard for physicists as they deal with evolutionary stellar
processes but these productive approaches are lost in the babble of
'black holes eating stars' and other such pulpy ephemera.
It is Christian thing,it is how I understand background faith as the
pallet against which creation is observed and appreciated - looking at
natural efficiency and process at a human level works all the way up
to stellar evolution and I have no doubt it works at greater
structures.Judging from the way my work of rotation and plate
tectonics/planetary spherical deviation was handled ,or rather
mangled,I had every right to keep this section of my work private and
it has been that way for almost 2 decades.
Unlike anyone here,in 1990 I actually worked with the geometry of
stellar evolution in terms of volume/density which provides the basis
for the rings seen in that supernova -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960705.html
So,the possibility is that some supernova are indeed the final moments
of stellar evolution but there is also the possibility that it could
be a transition phase and that is where it gets interesting.I found
the geometry that suits but it is not suitable for a Usenet
audience,merely for those who are serious about astronomy and the flow
of information to terrestrial effects right down to a human level and
smaller.
> On 5/22/12 3:33 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > It is fine being a 'supernova expert' after the fact but the original
> > work I did in 1990 on density/volume ratio in stars allied with
> > natural efficiency (hence the phi proportion) created the outlines of
> > an alternative way to look at stellar evolution and the creation of
> > individual solar systems - including our own.There is something lovely
> > about our own central star and so what if it is too early to say that
> > the elements found throughout our solar system have their origins in
> > our Sun at a different phase in its evolution - the geometry which
> > binds stellar evolution with all the myriad of individual geometries
> > on this magnificent planet indicate a geometrical E Pluribus Unum.
>
> Gerald, what Type of a supernova, in your opinion, was SN 1987a ?
>
> > It is fine being a 'supernova expert' after the fact but the original
> > work I did in 1990 on density/volume ratio in stars allied with
> > natural efficiency (hence the phi proportion) created the outlines of
> > an alternative way to look at stellar evolution and the creation of
> > individual solar systems - including our own.There is something lovely
> > about our own central star and so what if it is too early to say that
> > the elements found throughout our solar system have their origins in
> > our Sun at a different phase in its evolution - the geometry which
> > binds stellar evolution with all the myriad of individual geometries
> > on this magnificent planet indicate a geometrical E Pluribus Unum.
>
There is night and day difference between looking at a supernova as
the birth of a solar system as opposed to the death of a star and the
formative reasoning behind this did not emerge until years after I
worked on the external rings and the internal ring using a background
geometry that is found on Earth in abundance and especially the
geometries relating to the Phi proportion.It is the one area that I
have regard for physicists as they deal with evolutionary stellar
processes but these productive approaches are lost in the babble of
'black holes eating stars' and other such pulpy ephemera.
It is Christian thing,it is how I understand background faith as the
pallet against which creation is observed and appreciated - looking at
natural efficiency and process at a human level works all the way up
to stellar evolution and I have no doubt it works at greater
structures.Judging from the way my work of rotation and plate
tectonics/planetary spherical deviation was handled ,or rather
mangled,I had every right to keep this section of my work private and
it has been that way for almost 2 decades.
Unlike anyone here,in 1990 I actually worked with the geometry of
stellar evolution in terms of volume/density which provides the basis
for the rings seen in that supernova -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap960705.html
So,the possibility is that some supernova are indeed the final moments
of stellar evolution but there is also the possibility that it could
be a transition phase and that is where it gets interesting.I found
the geometry that suits but it is not suitable for a Usenet
audience,merely for those who are serious about astronomy and the flow
of information to terrestrial effects right down to a human level and
smaller.
Brad Guth
May 23, 2012, 8:51:33 AM5/23/12
to
On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
galaxy class of mass. No doubt those big initial stars didn't last
very long.
Given a billion some odd years of multiple stellar rebirthing, complex
life could have started.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
First generation stars most likely formed quickly and had to be of a
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
galaxy class of mass. No doubt those big initial stars didn't last
very long.
Given a billion some odd years of multiple stellar rebirthing, complex
life could have started.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Message has been deleted
Yousuf Khan
May 23, 2012, 11:19:15 AM5/23/12
to
On 21/05/2012 7:41 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> I call your attention to:
>
> Pair Instability Supernovae: Light Curves, Spectra, and Shock Breakout
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734..102K
>> The supernovae they make can be remarkably energetic (up to ~1053 erg)
>> and synthesize considerable amounts of radioactive isotopes.
Sure, they get energetic, just like any other supernova. But that
> I call your attention to:
>
> Pair Instability Supernovae: Light Curves, Spectra, and Shock Breakout
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734..102K
>> The supernovae they make can be remarkably energetic (up to ~1053 erg)
>> and synthesize considerable amounts of radioactive isotopes.
doesn't mean that that energy is concentrated enough to reach the
temperatures needed for the rp-process to get protons to overcome their
Coulomb barrier repulsion. With the s-process not viable either inside
an PI SNe, so that leaves just the r-process which involves just pushing
neutrons together. When you have nuclei made of just huge amounts of
neutrons, they start breaking apart due to the Weak Interaction,
therefore they become radioactive. However, being radioactive isotope
doesn't necessarily mean that you're made up of those elements above
iron, even low elements like carbon and oxygen can become radioactive
given enough neutrons crowding their nuclei.
Yousuf Khan
Brad Guth
May 23, 2012, 3:55:06 PM5/23/12
to
On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
There should be lots of intelligent other life as having at least a
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
billion or greater years of evolution advantage over us. Of course if
they're anything like us, they'd likely have expended every possible
global resource and having died off as of billions of years ago.
First generation stars most likely formed quickly and had to be of a
hydrogen didn't last very long (perhaps only a few years per stellar
cycle).
Given an initial two or three billion some odd years of multiple
stellar rebirthing, whereas all sorts of complex life could have
started upon any number of suitable planets as having stars of 1e30 kg
or less. Those smaller stars of 10+ billion years age should still be
going as strong and steady as ever, providing a more ideal solar
system environment than what we have to work with.
Brad Guth
Jun 6, 2012, 3:08:28 AM6/6/12
to
On May 19, 7:33 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
When galaxies join up, the amount of rogue/wandering nomad planets
> Baby galaxies grew up quicklyhttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Baby_galaxies_grew_up_quickly_999.html
>
> Quote:
>
> > Up until now, researchers thought that it had taken billions of years for stars to form and with that, galaxies with a high content of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. But new research from the Niels Bohr Institute shows that this process went surprisingly quickly in some galaxies.
>
> > "We have studied 10 galaxies in the early Universe and analysed their light spectra. We are observing light from the galaxies that has been on a 10-12 billion year journey to Earth, so we see the galaxies as they were then. Our expectation was that they would be relatively primitive and poor in heavier elements, but we discovered somewhat to our surprise that the gas in some of the galaxies and thus the stars in them had a very high content of heavier elements. The gas was just as enriched as our own Sun," explains Professor Johan Fynbo from the Dark Cosmology Centre at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.
>
> So is 12 or 13 billion year old life, possible? Looks like it might have
> been superficially possible. Still we'd have to know the specific
> conditions inside those early galaxies. They could've been wracked with
> a lot of supernova explosions near life-forming solar systems, thus
> destroying their life. Much like life chemicals were always existent in
> the early Solar System, but conditions weren't exactly right until maybe
> 3.5 billion years ago. Similar sort of problems may have occurred in
> those early galaxies, but in a galaxy-wide scenario.
>
> Yousuf Khan
goes up by at least another thousand fold, and redistributed smaller
items can easily run a million fold greater until they're collected as
having impacted or simply captured by significant items of mass.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus
Brad Guth
Jun 8, 2012, 9:39:57 AM6/8/12
to
to offer, and considerably greater numbers of wide ranging items
associated with the Sirius star system shouldn't be any big surprise
considering the recent demise of Sirius-B.
Many others besides myself have been suggesting as to the vast number
of wandering/rogue or nomad items of interstellar space could easily
out-number the stars, whereas I'm simply suggesting that a thousand
fold more items than stars shouldn't be all that unexpected and
thereby at least doubling the mass of our galaxy (especially when
including the population and mass of brown dwarfs) shouldn't be so
unlikely.
Clearly the vast amount of gravity represented by galaxies can help
cause galactic mergers and some of those might combine to reform as a
singular larger galaxy. However the closing SOA of Andromeda at 300+
km/sec should rip entirely through our galaxy and keep right on going,
creating one hell of a mess out of each galaxy.
Galactic retrograde encounters can be worse than anything imaginable,
with tidal forces and millions of supernovas causing wide spread
trauma and physical damage to each galaxy, that could easily be
sufficient to destroy 99.9% of all biodiversity and intelligent life
in either galaxy, whereas the much softer glancing pro-grade
encounters should allow 99.9% of their biodiversity plus whatever
intelligent life in either galaxy to survive.
A galactic merger that's having to toss out spare black holes is
probably another good indication of a cosmic death sentence to the
vast majority of whatever life previously existed within either of
those galaxies prior to their merging.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/cid42.html
0 new messages