The End Is Near.

[busterdog]

No telescope needed for June asteroid appearance

Dwarfs - Some help is usually needed to scope out rarely seen planetoids like Vesta
Wednesday, June 06, 2007BOB DUKE

June brings a rare opportunity to glimpse an asteroid with the unaided eye. And Jupiter joins the evening sky, but Venus will grab the most attention all month long.

Vesta slides into view
While the number of dwarf planets, led by recent inductee and former full planet Pluto, continues to climb, none is near enough Earth to be seen in anything but powerful telescopes. Asteroids, also called "minor planets," number in the thousands and are generally too small to be seen without optical aid. Until this month.

http://www.oregonlive.com/science/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/science/1181082316320510.xml&coll=7

Not really.

Bet you thought I was serious.


So that we are not entirely frivolous,

http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/2067/2/cosmic-clock-dates-ancient-star

Cosmic clock dates ancient star

Using a dating technique similar to that used in archaeology, astronomers have found a star to be almost as old as the universe its self.

The star, HE 1523-0901 - which is located in our galaxy - was found to be 13.2 billion years old by a team using the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) to measure not one, but six radioactive ‘cosmic clocks’.

Measurement of the radioactive decay of 'cosmic clocks'
can give clues as to the age of distant stars
Anna Frebel, of the MacDonal Observatory in the US, and leader of the study said: “Surprisingly, it is very hard to pin down the age of a star. This requires measuring very precisely the abundance of the radioactive elements thorium or uranium, a feat only the largest telescopes such as ESO’s VLT can achieve.”

The technique is similar to the carbon-14 dating method that has been so successful in archaeology, whereby items can be dated according the abundance of radioactively decayed carbon isotopes. In astronomy however, the technique must be applied to vastly longer timescales - meaning that to remain useful the radioactive cosmic ‘clock’ used must not decay too quickly leaving enough of it to allow accurate measurement.

The key to the team’s success was the combination of six different measurements of age dating involving both thorium and uranium in combination with three other neutron-capture elements - europium, osmium, and iridium.
“Until now, it has not been possible to measure more than a single cosmic clock for a star. Now, however, we have managed to make six measurements in this one star” said Frebel.

The universe is thought to be 13.7 billion years old, suggesting that the star was formed very early in the life of our own galaxy.

Even if they used the RFHT (Really Freakin' Huge Telescope), you know I am not buying it.

It must take an enormous amount of resolving power to pick these wavelengths out. I mean, we are talking about miniscule amounts of metal, I would assume. Even a red-shifted set of wavelenghts should bear a more or less unique pattern relative to one another. It is sort of an interesting problem to try to figure out how the heck they did this.

 

[shernren]

Even if they used the RFHT (Really Freakin' Huge Telescope), you know I am not buying it.

It must take an enormous amount of resolving power to pick these wavelengths out. I mean, we are talking about miniscule amounts of metal, I would assume. Even a red-shifted set of wavelenghts should bear a more or less unique pattern relative to one another. It is sort of an interesting problem to try to figure out how the heck they did this.

The VLT is a set of four telescopes in Chile, each having a 8.2m diameter lens. I think that certainly qualifies as "very large"! Having said that, I too am interested in the types of assumptions that must have went into this, particularly with respect to the initial nucleon ratios etc. - assuming, of course, that the radiodating system really is analogous to normal radiodating and it isn't just a media stuff-up.

By the way, your RFHT might not be as frivolous as you intended it to be. The folk (European Southern Observatory) who built the VLT are currently going through plans to build an, you guessed it, Extremely Large Telescope. I kid you not. And after that is completed, they'll get back to a plan which they've had on their back-burners but never got to, their extremely imaginatively and evocatively named Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.

Good grief.

Considering the amount of money, time, and effort that's being poured into these things, the least they could do is to organize a naming contest so that people who actually have a smidgen of creativity can give them a decent name!

 

[busterdog]

The VLT is a set of four telescopes in Chile, each having a 8.2m diameter lens. I think that certainly qualifies as "very large"! Having said that, I too am interested in the types of assumptions that must have went into this, particularly with respect to the initial nucleon ratios etc. - assuming, of course, that the radiodating system really is analogous to normal radiodating and it isn't just a media stuff-up.

By the way, your RFHT might not be as frivolous as you intended it to be. The folk (European Southern Observatory) who built the VLT are currently going through plans to build an, you guessed it, Extremely Large Telescope. I kid you not. And after that is completed, they'll get back to a plan which they've had on their back-burners but never got to, their extremely imaginatively and evocatively named Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.

Good grief.

Considering the amount of money, time, and effort that's being poured into these things, the least they could do is to organize a naming contest so that people who actually have a smidgen of creativity can give them a decent name!

The Behemoth-Like Telescope would sound yummy.

How about the Rosie O'Donnell very large array?

How about The People Magazine Telescope, for a new look at the stars?

Looking at these devices, I always think of an old Dave Barry piece about those enormous colliders. To get one, you would have to like pick a waitress or a bricklayer and convince them that you need 100 million or so to smash tiny, tiny things you can't see at 1% closer to light speed (or whatever it is) than the previous collider. Otherwise you don't get the money.

Of course, it is always easy to lambast the scientists, but if it were just a question of money, we could just as easily eliminate cigarettes, about 200 cable TV channels or Tom Cruise. Kind of like dissing the Pope's billions when you won't skip a meal to help some kid in Haiti.

If you date this thing that close to the BB, do you also need to push back the date of the BB itself? The title for this thing didn't make sense to me.

 

[Deamiter]

If you date this thing that close to the BB, do you also need to push back the date of the BB itself? The title for this thing didn't make sense to me.

Um... half a billion years is easily long enough for a star to form.

I find it interesting that you express incredulity at the scientists' ability to measure precise the precise spectrum of these stars. Is this based on a knowledge of spectography in astronomy or is your incredulity at the measurement based on your rejection of the conclusion it lead the scientists to?

 

[shernren]

Big Bang nucleosynthesis would have finished in about three minutes after the beginning, by our current knowledge, so I agree with Deamiter in that half a billion years is easily long enough for a star to form.

Previous measurements on the aptly-named VLT have shown that the Milky Way started forming almost immediately after the Big Bang: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-20-04.html , so that this latest result is in agreement with that.

Having said that, I am very curious why there are neutron capture elements in the star. Shouldn't it have gone nova / supernova by now? I'm no expert in stellar evolution.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Big Bang nucleosynthesis would have finished in about three minutes after the beginning, by our current knowledge, so I agree with Deamiter in that half a billion years is easily long enough for a star to form.

Previous measurements on the aptly-named VLT have shown that the Milky Way started forming almost immediately after the Big Bang: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-20-04.html , so that this latest result is in agreement with that.

Having said that, I am very curious why there are neutron capture elements in the star. Shouldn't it have gone nova / supernova by now? I'm no expert in stellar evolution.

If it is a small star, then no, it could easily ride the time out.

The larger a star the more quickly it burns fuel and the quicker it goes boom.

It is an interesting star in that it was small, according to most models the majority of early stars were much larger, a small one is rather rare for the earliest stars.

 

[shernren]

If it is a small star, then no, it could easily ride the time out.

The larger a star the more quickly it burns fuel and the quicker it goes boom.

It is an interesting star in that it was small, according to most models the majority of early stars were much larger, a small one is rather rare for the earliest stars.

Not so much in terms of the time. Definitely this star must be really small and steady to last from the Big Bang to now. Which also makes some (tentative, amateurish) sense: local mass fluctuations would have been pretty small right after the Big Bang, so that the earliest stars should have been expected to be small stars.

What I'm more curious about is the stellar "chemistry" involved here. As far as I know, because of the mass defect curve, it is energetically unfavorable to produce any element above iron in stellar cores. There is a slow neutron process (S-process) which adds neutrons to elements, fueled and offset by the beta decay of smaller elements, but it seems to cap at lead, which is quite a distance from uranium. What are the processes involved that would create these heavy elements being measured?

 

[sfs]

What I'm more curious about is the stellar "chemistry" involved here. As far as I know, because of the mass defect curve, it is energetically unfavorable to produce any element above iron in stellar cores. There is a slow neutron process (S-process) which adds neutrons to elements, fueled and offset by the beta decay of smaller elements, but it seems to cap at lead, which is quite a distance from uranium. What are the processes involved that would create these heavy elements being measured?

That's easy: it's a second-generation star. The heavy elements were produced via r-process (mentioned in the abstract) in an earlier supernova.

Also, note that the uncertainty on the age is roughly 2 billion years.

 

[busterdog]

Um... half a billion years is easily long enough for a star to form.

I find it interesting that you express incredulity at the scientists' ability to measure precise the precise spectrum of these stars. Is this based on a knowledge of spectography in astronomy or is your incredulity at the measurement based on your rejection of the conclusion it lead the scientists to?

Because I have a level of curiousity about it, but I still elevate a particular reading of scripture above scientific observation. That's all.

 

[shernren]

That's easy: it's a second-generation star. The heavy elements were produced via r-process (mentioned in the abstract) in an earlier supernova.

Also, note that the uncertainty on the age is roughly 2 billion years.

Any links to the abstract / paper?

 

[artybloke]

but I still elevate a particular reading of scripture above scientific observation.

So you now admit that your (materialist) reading of scripture isn't the only one possible?

Progress, of a kind.

 

[sfs]

Any links to the abstract / paper?

Abstract. The article is linked from there too, but there is no free access.

 

[shernren]

Abstract. The article is linked from there too, but there is no free access.

Well, I got access from ANU. Cool stuff. Thanks for the link!

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

http://www.oregonlive.com/science/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/science/1181082316320510.xml&coll=7

Not really.

Bet you thought I was serious.


So that we are not entirely frivolous,

http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/2067/2/cosmic-clock-dates-ancient-star

Even if they used the RFHT (Really Freakin' Huge Telescope), you know I am not buying it.

It must take an enormous amount of resolving power to pick these wavelengths out. I mean, we are talking about miniscule amounts of metal, I would assume. Even a red-shifted set of wavelenghts should bear a more or less unique pattern relative to one another. It is sort of an interesting problem to try to figure out how the heck they did this.

You say the end is near . . . .


I say thank God . . .Whom I will refer to
starting now as also The Father Potter as HE is
referd to in the Old Testament
were we should also have the 613 Commands of the Ancient Law of the
Penta Tuke (sp)

 

[KerrMetric]

If you date this thing that close to the BB, do you also need to push back the date of the BB itself?

No.

 

[Dannager]

You say the end is near . . . .


I say thank God . . .Whom I will refer to
starting now as also The Father Potter as HE is
referd to in the Old Testament
were we should also have the 613 Commands of the Ancient Law of the
Penta Tuke (sp)

What?

 

[busterdog]

You say the end is near . . . .


I say thank God . . .Whom I will refer to
starting now as also The Father Potter as HE is
referd to in the Old Testament
were we should also have the 613 Commands of the Ancient Law of the
Penta Tuke (sp)

I would rather have a penta tuke than a tent 'o puke! (I think you mean pentateuch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentateuch)

And, as you suggest,

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

If there were to be an end, certainly God cares for his people and is worthy of our trust for our welfare in such matters.

I don't really predict that an end is near, though the news talks about asteroids coming near to the earth from time to time. I was kidding some of the other folks on this site with that story. If I am going to look for the Lord to the return in terms of an "end", I darn well ought to be spending more time looking for Him in my day, every day. When I see Him better in my day, that end will come into focus.