First Biological Evidence of a Supernova!

[Double-A]

"May 8, 2013 — In fossil remnants of iron-loving bacteria, researchers
of the Cluster of Excellence Origin and Structure of the Universe at
the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM), found a radioactive iron
isotope that they trace back to a supernova in our cosmic
neighborhood. This is the first proven biological signature of a
starburst on our Earth. The age determination of the deep-drill core
from the Pacific Ocean showed that the supernova must have occurred
about 2.2 million years ago, roughly around the time when the modern
human developed."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508123022.htm

Double-A

[Hägar]

"Double-A" <doub...@hush.com> wrote in message
news:af1a72c2-b439-4d2e...@ow4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

*** Considering that in the Milky Way a Supernova occurs about every 50
years, and the Galaxy is about, oh, 11 Billion years old, why do you find it
so bedazzling that one of those candles lit in our galactic neighborhood ???

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/24/13 2:07 PM, H�gar wrote:
> Considering that in the Milky Way a Supernova occurs about every 50
> years, and the Galaxy is about, oh, 11 Billion years old

The galaxy is the result of man many mergers of smaller galaxies
over the last 13 billion years. I am not awar of supernovae occuing
that often in the galaxy. Is there a list?

[Brad Guth]

On May 24, 1:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

There's a list of white dwarfs, and there's certainly lots of those
(including one that's only 8.6 ly from us).

How much iron did Sirius(b) give off?

[Yousuf Khan]

On 25/05/2013 11:11 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On May 24, 1:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On 5/24/13 2:07 PM, H�gar wrote:
>>
>>> Considering that in the Milky Way a Supernova occurs about every 50
>>> years, and the Galaxy is about, oh, 11 Billion years old
>>
>> The galaxy is the result of man many mergers of smaller galaxies
>> over the last 13 billion years. I am not awar of supernovae occuing
>> that often in the galaxy. Is there a list?
>
> There's a list of white dwarfs, and there's certainly lots of those
> (including one that's only 8.6 ly from us).
>
> How much iron did Sirius(b) give off?

White dwarfs don't make iron, unless they blow up later as Type Ia's. So
compiling a population of white dwarfs serves no purpose in finding iron
sources.

Yousuf Khan

[Hägar]

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:-_udncWyG7VBTALM...@giganews.com...

*** It's all very complicated, Sam, but start off by going to Google and
type
"frequency of supernovae". There will be a slew of answers, such as:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980309a.html

no two of then alike, but when you average it all out, t comes to One every
50 years or so. I'm sorry I couldn't nail it down to the exact decade for
you.
No need to thank me ... I enjoy helping the handicapped.

[Hägar]

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:84b7d06e-d117-496c...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...

On May 24, 1:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/24/13 2:07 PM, H�gar wrote:
>
> > Considering that in the Milky Way a Supernova occurs about every 50
> > years, and the Galaxy is about, oh, 11 Billion years old
>
> The galaxy is the result of man many mergers of smaller galaxies
> over the last 13 billion years. I am not awar of supernovae occuing
> that often in the galaxy. Is there a list?

There's a list of white dwarfs, and there's certainly lots of those
(including one that's only 8.6 ly from us).

How much iron did Sirius(b) give off?

*** Your almost anal fixation with the Sirius Star System is hereby noted
...
get a life, you hapless hack ...

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/13 3:11 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> There's a list of white dwarfs, and there's certainly lots of those
> (including one that's only 8.6 ly from us).
>
> How much iron did Sirius(b) give off?

Essentially none -- Iron winds up in the interstellar environment
from supernovae (all types). :-o

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 24, 1:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam, I have to ask; what exactly *is* your area of expertise? While
most of us can conduct a simple Google search, (so-called Google-Fu is
just a matter of knowing how to select search terms that will
eliminate most of the false hits one gets with the simpler searches-
you don't need to be a polymath) it's my observation that specializing
in one field can actually handicap one when searching outside one's
specialty because one naturally thinks in the vocabulary of that
specialty.

I mean, just typing:

list supernova milky way

(no plurals, no quotes)

returns a little over 500,000 results (very narrow for Google).
Granted, the first three are to Wikipedia but the next is an actual
list of historically observed supernovae in the Milky Way:

http://messier.seds.org/more/mw_sn.html

The Wikipedia articles do explain that the "one per 50 years" number
is an average, and provide references.

Sometimes it's good to step outside your comfort zone.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/13 1:03 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> Sam, I have to ask; what exactly*is* your area of expertise?

I am not claiming any area of expertise. All I said was that I am not
aware of a rate as great as one supernova per 50 years in this galaxy.

The http://messier.seds.org/more/mw_sn.html page doesn't convince me
otherwise. I think the last one was 1604.

[Brad Guth]

On May 25, 8:23 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 25/05/2013 11:11 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 1:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On 5/24/13 2:07 PM, Hägar wrote:
>
> >>> Considering that in the Milky Way a Supernova occurs about every 50
> >>> years, and the Galaxy is about, oh, 11 Billion years old
>
> >>     The galaxy is the result of man many mergers of smaller galaxies
> >>     over the last 13 billion years. I am not awar of supernovae occuing
> >>     that often in the galaxy. Is there a list?
>
> > There's a list of white dwarfs, and there's certainly lots of those
> > (including one that's only 8.6 ly from us).
>
> > How much iron did Sirius(b) give off?
>
> White dwarfs don't make iron, unless they blow up later as Type Ia's. So
> compiling a population of white dwarfs serves no purpose in finding iron
> sources.
>
>         Yousuf Khan

Their helium flashovers are kinda like soft novas, and some WDs go
through multiple cycles before turning into a very dense ball of
mostly carbon.

What percentage of original stars (those of the first million or
billion years) have blown up?

[Brad Guth]

That's good to know, but how many of those original stars have blown
up or having imploded for whatever reasons?

Supposedly our universe has had at the very least 5e24 stars, and
perhaps by now 10% of those have gone nova/supernova kaput. That's
quite a lot of iron and helium set free.

[Hägar]

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:B-2dndhhcOLOnTzM...@giganews.com...

*** That may have been the last "observable" one from Earth. Taking into
account the
100,000 LY diameter of our Galaxy and a good portion of it hidden from view
behind the central bulge, I still believe that one every 50 years is as
close a guess as any ... after all, that all these date are approximations.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 25, 11:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/25/13 1:03 PM, n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > Sam, I have to ask; what exactly*is*  your area of expertise?
>
>    I am not claiming any area of expertise. All I said was that I am not
>    aware of a rate as great as one supernova per 50 years in this galaxy.
>

>    Thehttp://messier.seds.org/more/mw_sn.htmlpage doesn't convince me

>    otherwise. I think the last one was 1604.

Looks like that 50 year estimate was conservative:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/may/HQ_08126_Chandra_Supernova.html

The most recent supernova in our galaxy has been discovered by
tracking the rapid expansion of its remains. This result, using NASA's
Chandra X-ray Observatory and the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory's Very Large Array, will help improve our understanding of
how often supernovae explode in the Milky Way galaxy.

The supernova explosion occurred about 140 years ago, making it the
most recent in the Milky Way. Previously, the last known supernova in
our galaxy occurred around 1680, an estimate based on the expansion of
its remnant, Cassiopeia A.

Finding such a recent, obscured supernova is a first step in making a
better estimate of how often the stellar explosions occur. This is
important because supernovae heat and redistribute large amounts of
gas, and pump heavy elements out into their surroundings. They can
trigger the formation of new stars as part of a cycle of stellar death
and rebirth. The explosion also can leave behind, in addition to the
expanding remnant, a central neutron star or black hole.

The recent supernova explosion was not seen with optical telescopes
because it occurred close to the center of the galaxy and is embedded
in a dense field of gas and dust. This made the object about a
trillion times fainter, in optical light, than an unobscured
supernova. However, the remnant it caused can be seen by X-ray and
radio telescopes.

"We can see some supernova explosions with optical telescopes across
half of the universe, but when they're in this murk we can miss them
in our own cosmic backyard," said Stephen Reynolds of North Carolina
State University in Raleigh, who led the Chandra study. "Fortunately,
the expanding gas cloud from the explosion shines brightly in radio
waves and X-rays for thousands of years. X-ray and radio telescopes
can see through all that obscuration and show us what we've been
missing."

Astronomers regularly observe supernovae in other galaxies like ours.
Based on those observations, researchers estimate about three explode
every century in the Milky Way.

"If the supernova rate estimates are correct, there should be the
remnants of about 10 supernova explosions that are younger than
Cassiopeia A," said David Green of the University of Cambridge in the
United Kingdom, who led the Very Large Array study. "It's great to
finally track one of them down."


Mark L. Fergerson

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/13 5:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> That's good to know, but how many of those original stars have blown
> up or having imploded for whatever reasons?

We will know more in a few years when better telescopes come on
line, but is is thought that the first generation of star that
contained nothing but Hydrogen an Helium went supernova dusting
the universe with heavy elements for the first time.

And it is possible that most formed black holes.

Both the Webb space telescope and the new 30 meter telescope will
help answer those questions about the first stars and the formation of
the first galaxies.

[Sam Wormley]

Thanks, Mark.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/24/13 2:07 PM, Hägar wrote:

The observer rate around the universe is one SN/Galaxy/Century. One
would expect the rate to be similar in our galaxy.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/25/13 7:31 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

Milky Way Supernova Rate Confirmed
> http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3310976.html?page=1&c=y

> How often do supernovae pop off in our galaxy? Using the European
> Space Agency's Integral satellite, an international team estimates
> that one of the Milky Way's massive stars explodes about every 50
> years on average. This estimate agrees rather well with previous
> studies, but the earlier work relied on more indirect methods

[Sam Wormley]

[Yousuf Khan]

If the purpose is to try to find iron, then helium flashovers have
nothing to do with it. As the name implies, all it does is create
helium, nowhere near iron. Only the final supernova is powerful enough
to create the remaining ingredients upto and beyond iron. The beyond
elements are actually endothermic, meaning to create them uses up more
energy than they produce, so a supernova is actually losing its last
remaining energy when it goes into making the heavier elements.

> What percentage of original stars (those of the first million or
> billion years) have blown up?

Original stars were known as the Pop III stars, meaning the very first
monster stars, which created all of the other stars after them (i.e. Pop
II & I). Those first Pop III stars have all died, 100%.

However, if you're talking about the first million to a billion years,
then that covers more than just the original Pop III, there are also
second-generation Pop II stars in that time period. Many of those Pop II
stars may still be among us, if they were small enough to last this
long, usually red or orange dwarfs. In the Sun's local neighbourhood,
Barnard's Star might be one of those oldest remaining Pop II stars, it's
approximately 10 Gyr old.

Yousuf Khan

[Poutnik]

Hägar posted Sat, 25 May 2013 17:01:47 -0700

>
> "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
> news:B-2dndhhcOLOnTzM...@giganews.com...
>
> On 5/25/13 1:03 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > Sam, I have to ask; what exactly*is* your area of expertise?
>
> I am not claiming any area of expertise. All I said was that I am not
> aware of a rate as great as one supernova per 50 years in this galaxy.
>
> The http://messier.seds.org/more/mw_sn.html page doesn't convince me
> otherwise. I think the last one was 1604.
>
> *** That may have been the last "observable" one from Earth. Taking into

By the naked eye, AFAIK.

> account the
> 100,000 LY diameter of our Galaxy and a good portion of it hidden from view
> behind the central bulge, I still believe that one every 50 years is as
> close a guess as any ... after all, that all these date are approximations.

--
Poutnik

[alie...@gmail.com]

On May 25, 6:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/25/13 7:31 PM, n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 11:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/25/13 1:03 PM, n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> >>> Sam, I have to ask; what exactly*is*  your area of expertise?
>
> >>     I am not claiming any area of expertise. All I said was that I am not
> >>     aware of a rate as great as one supernova per 50 years in this galaxy.
>

> >>     Thehttp://messier.seds.org/more/mw_sn.htmlpagedoesn't convince me

Your cite is two years older than mine; split the difference and
call it 2 1/2 per century?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Brad Guth]

On May 25, 11:58 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 6:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/25/13 7:31 PM, n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 11:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 5/25/13 1:03 PM, n...@bid.nes wrote:
>
> > >>> Sam, I have to ask; what exactly*is*  your area of expertise?
>
> > >>     I am not claiming any area of expertise. All I said was that I am not
> > >>     aware of a rate as great as one supernova per 50 years in this galaxy.
>

> > >>     Thehttp://messier.seds.org/more/mw_sn.htmlpagedoesn'tconvince me

That's roughly 3e8 stars thus far as having gone kaput, and perhaps
another hundred times worth of others as having become white dwarfs.
Combined, that's a lot of stellar mass released as IGM in addition to
the already IGM of molecular/nebula gas that simply had to exist to a
very large extent.

[john]

Agreed.
There was a Big Bang and
Ho-lee!! all these stars!
Big ones!
But they're all gone and
now there are more stars from them.
And the stars clump into galaxies!!
With arms!!
Wow!!

You guys really buy that shit?

School kids could do better than that.

Anyone doing real Science gets
culled out.

john

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/26/13 10:34 AM, john wrote:
> You guys really buy that shit?

You think that's something, you should see the scientific
observations. Billions of stars in billions of galaxies. It's
just enormous!



Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail
on separate pages:

1. The expansion of the universe
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html

Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally
receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang
theory might be right.

2. The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html

The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should
have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few
minutes after the Big Bang.

3. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic
microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover
from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion
that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless
hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

[Brad Guth]

On May 25, 6:09 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/13 7:58 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/24/13 2:07 PM, Hägar wrote:

> >> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message

5e11 galaxies, each producing 2 SM worth of SN per century

13e7 centuries X 2 = 2.6e8 X 5e11 = 1.3e20 MS

1.3e20 X 2e30 = 2.6e50 kg

Added to the existing ISM and IGM gas, combined, that's a lot of
stellar mass released as ISM and IGM in addition to the already
substantial ISM and IGM of molecular/nebula gas (mostly hydrogen and
helium) that simply had to already exist to a very large extent.

[Brad Guth]

In other words, our star is a population I or third generation
(possibly forth) because it's relatively newish.

[Brad Guth]

On May 21, 5:04 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> "May 8, 2013 — In fossil remnants of iron-loving bacteria, researchers
> of the Cluster of Excellence Origin and Structure of the Universe at
> the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM), found a radioactive iron
> isotope that they trace back to a supernova in our cosmic
> neighborhood. This is the first proven biological signature of a
> starburst on our Earth. The age determination of the deep-drill core
> from the Pacific Ocean showed that the supernova must have occurred
> about 2.2 million years ago, roughly around the time when the modern
> human developed."
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508123022.htm
>
> Double-A

Lots of iron going every which way, plus more of just about everything
else making new stars, planets, planetoids, moons and those pesky
asteroids by the trillions per year.

An initial star like our sun likely started off at 2.2e30 kg, quickly
getting rid of 2e29 kg worth of elements heavier than hydrogen and
helium within the first months or possibly even within the first few
days, whereas some (less than 10%) of that tossed or centrifugal
ejected mass became planets, moons, planetoids and assorted asteroids,
with a great extent of everything else sent packing as ISM blown away
by those initial solar winds of 3000 km/sec.

If the IGM offers ionized hydrogen, then it also has to offer helium
and pretty much a little of everything else to speak of, along with
more of the same arriving as stars collide and others simply explode.

5e11 galaxies, each producing 2 stars worth of SN per century

13e7 centuries X 2 = 2.6e8 X 5e11 = 1.3e20 MS

1.3e20 X 2e30 = 2.6e50 kg (many would likely round that up to 3e50 kg)
of ISM + IGM contributed to whatever was already available. BTW; most
SNs are those stars of much greater mass (10+ MS), so that’s yet
another tenfold multiplier of what’s getting dumped back into the ISM
and IGM, making the SN contributions worth 3e51 kg..

Supposedly it takes a minimum of 1e3 SM worth of molecular/nebula mass
in order to produce a given star, though many of astrophysics
expertise would also consider 1e6:1 as necessary for creating those
stars of greater mass than our sun, and of course the vast majority of
stars are those smaller and more red dwarf classified. So, probably
the average ratio of IGM and ISM per star is somewhat closer to 1e4:1
(possibly worth 1e5:1), and most of that original IGM+ISM by rights
should still be out there as ionized particles along with a great deal
lf rogue/nomad helium because that’s an element being continually
created on the fly.

Matter initially ejected from stars, as added to the existing
inventory of ISM and IGM gas, combined with ongoing stellar ejected
material, and that's seriously a lot of stellar mass released as ISM

and IGM in addition to the already substantial ISM and IGM of
molecular/nebula gas (mostly hydrogen and helium) that simply had to

already exist to a very large extent. So, as far as I can tell, if
anything our universe has too much mass to contend with, which
eventually is going to represent a very bad thing as galaxies upon
galaxies merge back into the likes of the relatively nearby Great
Attractor, whereas thousands of galaxies will merge and likely form
yet another hoard of quasars, like the Huge-LQG of 6.1e18 SM.

A little extra deep thought, is that without helium our planet would
be dead in the water, so to speak, and for the most part it seems that
our indoctrinated K-12s don’t even have a clue. Without that very
special element of helium, most of modern science, physics and medical
advancements couldn’t have happened, and if Earth suddenly ran itself
out of helium, we’d be in a world of hurt as well as our planet being
of less mass and a world measurably colder without an active
geothermal core of uranium and thorium necessary for creating helium.

In other brief words, an exoplanet w/o helium is likely a very dead
planet, or at best poorly advanced.

The OCO mission would have been a great help, but then it would have
also pointed out the artificial ventings and their enormous thermal
waste taking place, and Big Energy wanted none of that to come back
and bite them. Once again, our K-12s don’t have a clue, and by the
time they’re in charge, it’ll once again be too late.

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... Good one!.... HAHAHAHAHAHA....
>
Astrophartist "Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
ISM blown away as the IGM offers 1.3e20 MS of ISM + IGM
contributed to BTW most SNs is getting dumped back

into the ISM and IGM, making the SN contributions worth

SM of IGM and ISM per original IGM+ISM created on the fly.

So, as far as I, Brad Guth, can tell, the nearby Great Attractor,
will form hoards Huge-LQG SM without helium. .

A little extra deep thought, our planet would be dead in the water,
for the most of our indoctrinated K-12s don’t even have a clue.

The OCO mission would have been a great help, but Big Energy

wanted none of that to come back and bite them. Once again,
our K-12s don’t have a clue, and by the time they’re in charge,
it’ll once again be too late.
>

hanson wrote:
Brad, since you forgot to tell the K12ers what it was too
late for, all the K-12 students ROTFLTAO and said:
"Brad Guth come back and bite us"
>
Thanks for the laughs you splendid speculator, Brad.
Now go and take some remedial night school classes
with Sam Wormely, to catch up with the K-12ers....
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson