harrycostas, your unrelated links in just about every post you've made have bored the heck out of me. It seems your the only one that seems to not understand what your posting. Sorry to be blunt, but someone has to be. You never answer any questions directly, rather answer questions with cryptic replies making people guess at what you mean. Please, read the material in the links your posting BEFORE you try to relate them to the subject, and make sure they fit the bill. More and more people are getting less interested in your responses because of the above. Please refrain from posting unrelated links, and study your material more. Anyone can post a simple link, but reading it and ensuring it relates is another.
- Status
harrycostas":2ysjgvja said:
Really? Harry, science is about figuring out how the universe works. This involves figuring out who's right and who's wrong.
G'day
Think about for a sec last few posts, rather then dicussing the issues, we have a critic discussion.
Science is not just
Ramparts said
I think you need to understand what science is about, you just limited yourself.
Supernova remnants
There is a variety of types from dust clouds to compact matter such as Neutron stars and to the ultimate unknown
that some call black holes. The following paper is not limited to that information.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504488
From Dusty Filaments to Cores to Stars: An Infrared Extinction Study of Lupus 3
Authors: Paula S. Teixeira (1, 2, 3), Charles J. Lada (1), Joao F. Alves (4) ((1) Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, (2) Departamento de Fisica da Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal, (3) Centro de Fisica Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal)
(Submitted on 21 Apr 2005)
Think about for a sec last few posts, rather then dicussing the issues, we have a critic discussion.
Science is not just
Ramparts said
I think you need to understand what science is about, you just limited yourself.
Supernova remnants
There is a variety of types from dust clouds to compact matter such as Neutron stars and to the ultimate unknown
that some call black holes. The following paper is not limited to that information.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504488
From Dusty Filaments to Cores to Stars: An Infrared Extinction Study of Lupus 3
Authors: Paula S. Teixeira (1, 2, 3), Charles J. Lada (1), Joao F. Alves (4) ((1) Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, (2) Departamento de Fisica da Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal, (3) Centro de Fisica Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal)
(Submitted on 21 Apr 2005)
G'day Rampast
The scientific Method was first developed by a Muslim about 1000 years ago. The general workings can be found in any school paper.
Just thinking aloud here:
To apply a science method that can be dublicated and respected anywhere on the planet. The emotion of being right is not important, the science behind the method and its conclusion even though becoming a mainstream thought to be tested and that science to be respected.
In the last few years this has not been applied.
What we have seen is mainstream thinking overiding alternative theories and their evidence regardless of the evidence and the consequence. In many fields information is not recognized for many years influencing the progress of science.
Ramparts I know you know what science is.
The scientific Method was first developed by a Muslim about 1000 years ago. The general workings can be found in any school paper.
Just thinking aloud here:
To apply a science method that can be dublicated and respected anywhere on the planet. The emotion of being right is not important, the science behind the method and its conclusion even though becoming a mainstream thought to be tested and that science to be respected.
In the last few years this has not been applied.
What we have seen is mainstream thinking overiding alternative theories and their evidence regardless of the evidence and the consequence. In many fields information is not recognized for many years influencing the progress of science.
Ramparts I know you know what science is.
harrycostas":2pd23ho0 said:
The Scientific method goes back to the ancient Greek Natural Philosophers.
harrycostas":2pd23ho0 said:
That is an entirely unsupported opinion.
harrycostas":2pd23ho0 said:
No Sir, what we have seen is a spate of people purporting to understand science, and presenting "science" that has no backing and no supporting evidence. What we see is their proponents demanding that established science "explain itself" again and again, ad-infinitum, while the proponents of "alternate" theories refuse to do so. What we see is a constant barrage of vague claims of "science is denying this or that," or "Da Man is suppressing this or that," again with no support except a belief in conspiracy theories (and your claim about modern science "overriding" alternate theories conforms to this).
Example: Richard Hoagland and his "belief" in the Face on Mars. This has long since been shown to be a purely random terrain feature that mimics a face at a distance, but is solely due to shadows and terrain irregularities. Their answer to this is, of course, that information has been suppressed and data manipulated or withheld, rather than being intellectually honest and admitting that they are simply wrong.
harrycostas":2pd23ho0 said:
Mister Costas, I highly doubt that you do yourself. You are rapidly approaching one of our rules here, in which people are going to demand that you either "prove" your claims or cease posting them and acknowledge that you cannot do so.
If you wish to learn and debate science, that is fine. But these forums are not, nor have ever been intended for, people challenging mainstream science with constant cut-and-pastes, non-answers, and a refusal to prove their outre claims vis a vis established science by demanding others prove established science for their benefit.
You may consider me a jerk for telling you this, but that IS one of my jobs here. These are "pure" science forums, not otherwise intended for the latest "theory" that someone with no science background can throw up as "the truth" with no support.
Please consider all of the above before responding.
harrycostas":2r2ayo16 said:
The paper you cited is not duscussing supernova remnants, it is discussing star formation.
Yevaud, origin... I gave up on trying to explain it to him. I don't know many things; however I do a lot of research and along with posting RELATED links, I give my own explanation or understanding of the subject. Harrycostas, no one is ganging up on you, or trying to make you feel bad. I noticed you never so much as gave my last post a second thought, but I'm just trying to help you out a bit and save the frustration of you and others. (including myself). I do not mind an honest debate over the current theories and understandings of the cosmos, but please if you are going to utilize papers as a reference, use ones related to the discussion. We all share the same interest here and should have no reason to fight over it or be caused grief. We can all get along here. Just read through your material before you use it in relation to a given topic, that's all.
Re: Betelgeuse is one strange place
I'm not sure what all the hub-bub is about. Seems like a straight forward question...
As I posted before matter falling onto a white dwarf or neutron star will simply cause the star to explode at some point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova[/quote]
It seems to be predictable to the point that novas can be used as "standard candles" when figuring out cosmilogical distances. It doesn't seem like you can rejuvinate a stelar remnent without it exploding.
The closest thing I can think of to what you are asking about are blue stragglers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_stragglers
These appear to be a pair of older stars which have merged to form a single hotter blue star. These stars stand out in globular clusters because they appear to be younger than the stars around them.
harrycostas":276btnds said:
I'm not sure what all the hub-bub is about. Seems like a straight forward question...
As I posted before matter falling onto a white dwarf or neutron star will simply cause the star to explode at some point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova[/quote]
It seems to be predictable to the point that novas can be used as "standard candles" when figuring out cosmilogical distances. It doesn't seem like you can rejuvinate a stelar remnent without it exploding.
The closest thing I can think of to what you are asking about are blue stragglers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_stragglers
These appear to be a pair of older stars which have merged to form a single hotter blue star. These stars stand out in globular clusters because they appear to be younger than the stars around them.
G'day Raven
Thank you for the kind words.
If I missed your point of discussion, I'm sorry. I thought it was answered.
As for the links, basically sharing my reading. That has been stopped.
Hello Kg
I'm trying to understand your logic, can you explain a bit more.
Thank you for the kind words.
If I missed your point of discussion, I'm sorry. I thought it was answered.
As for the links, basically sharing my reading. That has been stopped.
Hello Kg
I'm trying to understand your logic, can you explain a bit more.
I'm sorry, I know it's a real pain that you will have to state what you actually think, rather than posting unrelated links... 
G'day MeteorWayne
No pain
The links that I shared were related in more ways then one.
Anyway this is more relaxing and less of a pain. Do not have to think.
No pain
The links that I shared were related in more ways then one.
Anyway this is more relaxing and less of a pain. Do not have to think.
harry, if you want to post links that reflect your reading that are unrelated to the topics under discussion in threads, might I suggest starting a "harry's readings" thread in User Announcements.
Harry, what you are suggesting is ridiculous. Supernovae do result in the formation of new stars...but not on the original core. Let's say a star did form because your "gravity sink" collecting enough material, on the surface of say...a neutron star. Why do we not see "normal" stars acting like they have a NS core? Why don't they have intense remnant magnetic fields such as is the case with magnetars? Do you really think that because some gas falls onto a neutron star, or a black hole, that it will just magically transform back into a normal stellar core? The stellar remnant would necessarily have to meet the conditions for the ignition of nuclear fusion...show me some calculations that show that this is even physically possible with a neutron star core. Or don't, because it's a waste of time.
To respond to your inevitable next post, no, I do not need to reread what you said, and no, I do not need to learn more about star formation/stellar structure to understand what you are suggesting. You really need to wait until you have at LEAST taken a graduate-level course in stellar structure/evolution before you go around starting to insult intelligent people on this forum(i.e., Wayne). As someone who has taken multiple graduate level classes and published a paper on this very topic(formation of stars) in perhaps the most respected refereed astrophysics journal, I feel very comfortable in saying that it is YOU who needs to go back and reread what you said, and what you posted, and then go read some material on stellar structure and see if you still believe that dead stars can be "rejuvenated".
In reality, many stars, our sun included, are believed to have formed as a result of a nearby supernova which shocks nearby molecular clouds into giving birth to stars. So you are correct that supernovae do play a role in star formation, but very very incorrect in saying that stars can form on top of a stellar remnant.
Answer this: if stars could form on top of a black hole, why hasn't all of the material falling into the supermassive black holes in the center of active galaxies "rejuvenated" the center and turned it into an enormous star which wuold subsequently explode? You did not say this was possible in your argument but it is a natural extension of it. But I'm sure I'm the stupid one who needs to go read some unrelated links, because god forbid you defend what you say with real arguments.
To respond to your inevitable next post, no, I do not need to reread what you said, and no, I do not need to learn more about star formation/stellar structure to understand what you are suggesting. You really need to wait until you have at LEAST taken a graduate-level course in stellar structure/evolution before you go around starting to insult intelligent people on this forum(i.e., Wayne). As someone who has taken multiple graduate level classes and published a paper on this very topic(formation of stars) in perhaps the most respected refereed astrophysics journal, I feel very comfortable in saying that it is YOU who needs to go back and reread what you said, and what you posted, and then go read some material on stellar structure and see if you still believe that dead stars can be "rejuvenated".
In reality, many stars, our sun included, are believed to have formed as a result of a nearby supernova which shocks nearby molecular clouds into giving birth to stars. So you are correct that supernovae do play a role in star formation, but very very incorrect in saying that stars can form on top of a stellar remnant.
Answer this: if stars could form on top of a black hole, why hasn't all of the material falling into the supermassive black holes in the center of active galaxies "rejuvenated" the center and turned it into an enormous star which wuold subsequently explode? You did not say this was possible in your argument but it is a natural extension of it. But I'm sure I'm the stupid one who needs to go read some unrelated links, because god forbid you defend what you say with real arguments.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
You may need to research a bit on star formation, jet formation and compact matter.
The following paper is just one option in star formation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3667
Star Formation Triggered by Supernova Explosions in Young Galaxies
Authors: Takanori Nagakura, Takashi Hosokawa, Kazuyuki Omukai
(Submitted on 21 Jul 2009)
The other option is by jet formation forming knots such as microquarsars. A prime example of this is the jet from M87. Google M87.
Another option is the rejuvination of stars fed by jet matter.
You may need to research a bit on star formation, jet formation and compact matter.
The following paper is just one option in star formation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3667
Star Formation Triggered by Supernova Explosions in Young Galaxies
Authors: Takanori Nagakura, Takashi Hosokawa, Kazuyuki Omukai
(Submitted on 21 Jul 2009)
The other option is by jet formation forming knots such as microquarsars. A prime example of this is the jet from M87. Google M87.
Another option is the rejuvination of stars fed by jet matter.
harrycostas":xvp0pqhn said:
And yet again Harry you have supplied a link that supports anothers position (UFmbutler) and refutes your position. Are you incapabible of understand what you read in the link or do you just guess from the title what the paper is about?
You are making yourself a laughing stock. This is really becoming quite embarassing...
G'day origin
I'm fully awear of the link that I posted.
and yet again rather then talking about the subject you have lead yourself in the same position of being a negative critic.
Is there something you wish to offer?
As for being a laughing stock, mate you are off this planet.
I'm fully awear of the link that I posted.
and yet again rather then talking about the subject you have lead yourself in the same position of being a negative critic.
Is there something you wish to offer?
As for being a laughing stock, mate you are off this planet.
harrycostas":2ch4jdjj said:
Unfortunately harry, that is par for the course with origin. He rarely if ever actually discusses astronomy. Mostly he spends his time posting personal insults. It's unfortunate, but it's typical of this 'style'. Don't take him seriously, none of the rest of us do.
Alright, Harry, if you're complaining that origin didn't offer anything, here's an explanation:
You seem to be claiming that new stars can form on the remnants of stellar cores, like white dwarfs or even black holes. We claim that absolutely nothing in astronomy today suggests this, and that the preprint you linked to doesn't agree with what you're saying. Here's an important sentence in the abstract:
"If this shell becomes gravitationally unstable and fragments into pieces, next-generation stars are expected to form from these fragments."
As the standard theory of stellar formation suggests, a shell of expanding gas will have gravitational instabilities (that is, areas which are more dense than others) and around those, stars will form. Gas will collapse onto the denser areas, and stars result. This is standard. I don't see how you can possibly claim that this paper is saying stars form on compact objects (rather than near them).
You seem to be claiming that new stars can form on the remnants of stellar cores, like white dwarfs or even black holes. We claim that absolutely nothing in astronomy today suggests this, and that the preprint you linked to doesn't agree with what you're saying. Here's an important sentence in the abstract:
"If this shell becomes gravitationally unstable and fragments into pieces, next-generation stars are expected to form from these fragments."
As the standard theory of stellar formation suggests, a shell of expanding gas will have gravitational instabilities (that is, areas which are more dense than others) and around those, stars will form. Gas will collapse onto the denser areas, and stars result. This is standard. I don't see how you can possibly claim that this paper is saying stars form on compact objects (rather than near them).
harrycostas, again, you have posted a link that refutes the point we must assume that you were trying to make. That is why I demanded (Now as a mod) that you define what point you are trying to make, and how the link you provide supports that point.
Without such backup, your unrelated links have not much to do with the topic, and usually disagree with the point you are trying to make (from what we can tell). So before providing a link, please state :
What your assertion is.
How the link you provide supports that assertion.
You are permitted to post random links unrelated to any topic in User Announcements. But you must meet these guidelines before posting what to us seems like unrelated links that you do not understand in existing discussions, particularly in the science fora. Your links appear to be unrelated and not understood. You must now defend the relevance and the support that the link has related to THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD.
You may consider this an official warning
Meteor Wayne.
Without such backup, your unrelated links have not much to do with the topic, and usually disagree with the point you are trying to make (from what we can tell). So before providing a link, please state :
What your assertion is.
How the link you provide supports that assertion.
You are permitted to post random links unrelated to any topic in User Announcements. But you must meet these guidelines before posting what to us seems like unrelated links that you do not understand in existing discussions, particularly in the science fora. Your links appear to be unrelated and not understood. You must now defend the relevance and the support that the link has related to THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD.
You may consider this an official warning
Meteor Wayne.
harrycostas":3d77gpbb said:
Science requires it's skeptics and critics, you know. They are, I repeat, required, and if someone's hypothesis cannot stand before their criticism, then their hypothesis fails.
"Oh the horror...a beautiful hypothesis slain by an inconvenient fact."
I'm sorry, your response made me laugh. Do you realize the link you posted was...basically exactly what I just said? That supernovae can trigger star formation? Do you really think that paper you posted is "over my head" so I will just assume you are right because you posted a link to it? I know what that paper says...it is clear that you do not. You say rejuvenation is another "option"...how? Like ramparts said, the paper you posted says supernovae trigger star formation, by shocking nearby molecular clouds into collapse.
Find me a supernova remnant where inflow has been detected towards the center(not from a nearby star or from passing through other material, but the actual SNR gas showing a large-scale inverse p cygni profile). I am not being a negative critic, I am asking questions and making demands that any scientist would make. You are not conisdering the consequences of your idea, or even bothering to look for the easily-detectable signatures of it.
Also, I am well aware of M87. How does it support your argument AT ALL? Do you even know what a microquasar is?
I have no problem with alternative-to-mainstream science, but you aren't even trying. At least in previous discussions on this forum of alternative theories, both sides were providing links to relevant papers and actually understanding the main point in them and how it does or doesn't support their argument. You are on the right track in looking at arxiv for information, but you are sorely lacking in the "understanding" department.
Find me a supernova remnant where inflow has been detected towards the center(not from a nearby star or from passing through other material, but the actual SNR gas showing a large-scale inverse p cygni profile). I am not being a negative critic, I am asking questions and making demands that any scientist would make. You are not conisdering the consequences of your idea, or even bothering to look for the easily-detectable signatures of it.
Also, I am well aware of M87. How does it support your argument AT ALL? Do you even know what a microquasar is?
I have no problem with alternative-to-mainstream science, but you aren't even trying. At least in previous discussions on this forum of alternative theories, both sides were providing links to relevant papers and actually understanding the main point in them and how it does or doesn't support their argument. You are on the right track in looking at arxiv for information, but you are sorely lacking in the "understanding" department.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Every upcoming 'Star Wars' movie officially announced
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Winter solstice 2024 brings shortest day of the year to Northern Hemisphere today
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram