dad said:
We were talking about interstellar matter - again your quote from a page back. Do you remember what you even post?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
dad said:I frankly don't believe you. I doubt what we see is what you claim and believe. You mean that IF space were space as we know it and our laws applied, THEN we would expect to see what you recite.
Source? Example?
That is your attempt to explain things, yes. Name one star that did any such thing?
You are so clueless on this you do not understand terminology. Hotter stars are said to be of early spectral type and cooler ones late spectral type. Hence the terms early and late type. This is standard nomenclature and the fact you do not recognise this just shows your knowledge level.False. It is not known even as we speak. Really. In fact there are no late or early type stars That is in your dark imagination
Archernar. Google this. Using interferometry this star has been directly imaged and it's cross-section measured. It is egg shaped. There are many stars like this.Name one.
You know you should really be quiet on this topic. You are just betraying ignorance and that you have never looked into this. Spectral line broadening. Star spots in cooler stars modulate the light curve. Etc. etc.How do we determine a star rotates fast? Heck you can't even tell us how far any star is. Nor how big. Nor what it is made of!
OK, so how do you filter stuff out from the sn81987a data?
Every single one of those links, except one are published research on SN1987A. You ask for specifics, but when presented them, you don't even have the decent courtesy to even look at them to see that they are all very specific about the information for which you inquired, much less look at their content. The only one not 1987A specific is the Costa, et al, which discusses the exact same content concerning SN generated isotopes like the others. All of those links give you full access to the entire paper, not just an abstract.Ok so you can't talk about sn1987a now? You decided to resort to a spamathon session? How can we look at the simple facts of one example and what dust or other factors is used if you jump around like a flea?
Is that another one of your attempts to draw out a rules violation comment so you can report me to the mods "again". I have addressed everyone of your questions and comments directly with specific information and supporting evidence. Each time you ignore what is presented and make completely absurd comments regarding that information. Additionally, you falsely accuse me of spamming information unrelated to the discussion, which I clearly demonstrated above is exactly what you asked to be shown.No it is a demo of you dog jumping like a flea. Stand still and make a point.
Most of the matter they claim is unknown stuff. So you are talking about some bit of the known stuff I guess? Now, where is this? How do you know it is what you think it is?We were talking about interstellar matter - again your quote from a page back. Do you remember what you even post?
Apparently your grasp of the matter is not of sufficient degree that you can explain as simply as possible. That always sets off alarm bells for me.It is done by applying filters that look only at specific absorption peaks.
I can direct you to some basic spectroscopy education materials you may find helpful if you like. Reviewing a wiki article does not give one the basic information needed to understand the principles of spectroscopic techniques and analysis.
Well, I'll take a look when I get time. But what I am interested in is what else if anything it could represent, not just attempts to make it be what they think it is. I have little doubt that very little in your links will show us these gamma rays and what they are and what is actually known...?Every single one of those links, except one are published research on SN1987A. You ask for specifics, but when presented them, you don't even have the decent courtesy to even look at them to see that they are all very specific about the information for which you inquired, much less look at their content. The only one not 1987A specific is the Costa, et al, which discusses the exact same content concerning SN generated isotopes like the others. All of those links give you full access to the entire paper, not just an abstract.
The first thing I read in this link is that they say the cobalt decay is 'inferred' by stuff that happened between 256 and 576 days after the explosion. Then it talks about ratios one or two times solar! That little bit alone involves a lot of assumptions. You see the whole thing is dependent on us buying the whole stellar evolution and distance and same state law package. They then rattle stuff off as if it had value. Having some cobalt (we know not how far away) after an event like that is not a surprise is it? What the issue is, is the meanings you infer on it.1990MNRAS.245..570V Page 570
Title: Direct Observation of Radioactive Cobalt Decay in Supernova 1987A
Authors: Varani, G. F., Meikle, W. P. S., Spyromilio, J., & Allen, D. A.
Journal: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 245, NO. 1/JUL1, P. 570, 1990
Here the first thing we see is that they admithttp://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0112405
Radioactivities and nucleosynthesis in SN 1987A. Claes Fransson and Cecilia Kozma, Stockholm Observatory, Department of Astronomy.
?? Paranoid? I have never reported anyone ever yet.Is that another one of your attempts to draw out a rules violation comment so you can report me to the mods "again".
Hey your links are actually not bad. It might save time if you picked out a point, rather than barraging us with reading material. Use the nice links as a source for what you quote from them or some such. Helps us not to bet bogged down.I have addressed everyone of your questions and comments directly with specific information and supporting evidence. Each time you ignore what is presented and make completely absurd comments regarding that information. Additionally, you falsely accuse me of spamming information unrelated to the discussion, which I clearly demonstrated above is exactly what you asked to be shown.
Everyone reading your posts is well aware of your style and intent, which is obviously not to discuss any science. Read into that whatever you like, you are fooling no one.
You talk to modern-day scientists, and you need alarm bells!?That always sets off alarm bells for me.
Apparently your grasp of the matter is not of sufficient degree that you can explain as simply as possible. That always sets off alarm bells for me.
I have already cited and linked an article that states that there is very little stellar dust between SN1987A and the earth and not a problem with any measurements. Even if it were it wouldn't matter, the fact remains that those isotopes were observed regardless of any dust.I have shown some links where indeed dust is a factor. Now you seem to think it is not in the gamma ray spectra you exampled. Fine. So, let's see the data. Let's see when you srated to get the rays from sn1987a exactly? Let's see if there is any 'moderating' factors like dust or..etc? Let's see if it straightforward and what exactly it represents...?
What it represents is that those decay rates are being measured in an event that occurred that occurred 160,000 years ago are the same as today. That demonstrates conclusively that physical laws have never changed. You can either deal with it or continue to stick your head in the sand.Well, I'll take a look when I get time. But what I am interested in is what else if anything it could represent, not just attempts to make it be what they think it is. I have little doubt that very little in your links will show us these gamma rays and what they are and what is actually known...?
Yes, and by measuring those ratios over that time period they can then calculate the decay rate of that event that occurred 160,000 years ago which is still the same then as now. And you are the one with all the assumption which are completely dreamed up.The first thing I read in this link is that they say the cobalt decay is 'inferred' by stuff that happened between 256 and 576 days after the explosion. Then it talks about ratios one or two times solar! That little bit alone involves a lot of assumptions.
Comments like that is why we all think you are out just to get a reaction rather than discuss any real science. I find comments like that disgusting.You see the whole thing is dependent on us buying the whole stellar evolution and distance and same state law package. They then rattle stuff off as if it had value. Having some cobalt (we know not how far away) after an event like that is not a surprise is it? What the issue is, is the meanings you infer on it.
None of that has anything to do with the fact of what was observed and quantified.Here the first thing we see is that they admit
"The nature of the explosion mechanism is still to a large extent unknown,.."
Also
"Unfortunately, only an
upper limit to the flux was obtained, yielding an upper limit to the 44Ti mass
of 1.1×10−4 M⊙. There is, however, a number of loop holes in this result, such
as extra dust cooling, mixing with other heavy elements contributing to the
cooling like silicon and sulphur, as well as uncertainties in the atomic data."
Really? You called them spam before and said they had nothing to do with SN1987A. And they only thing they will show for you is how you misrepresent them.But hey not bad links. I suspect they will do me more good than your case
You talk to modern-day scientists, and you need alarm bells!?
You talk to modern-day scientists, and you need alarm bells!?
How is cooler determined?I cannot post links. Google Kraft curve. Almost all stars above a certain temperature are observed to rotate quickly. Stars cooler than this do not.
I understand that all stars are the same age except the ones born in the last 6000 years or so. I also understand that you will need to do more than call a star hot or cold. You need to show why you claim that. I doubt you can.You are so clueless on this you do not understand terminology. Hotter stars are said to be of early spectral type and cooler ones late spectral type.
Let's be clear...your knowledge level ain't what you thought it was, on that we can be certain! But it is interesting to have an 'expert' express his views.Hence the terms early and late type. This is standard nomenclature and the fact you do not recognise this just shows your knowledge level.
So? Can you prove an egg shape means fast rotation?Archernar. Google this. Using interferometry this star has been directly imaged and it's cross-section measured. It is egg shaped. There are many stars like this.
OK, so have you an example? How a star spot is measured to show rotation speed etc?You know you should really be quiet on this topic. You are just betraying ignorance and that you have never looked into this. Spectral line broadening. Star spots in cooler stars modulate the light curve. Etc. etc.
No. You can't. I understand that you were taught a lot of things. Sad. This is going to come as a shock to you to I guess.Of course we can measure distances and sizes and composition.
They talk at their own riskYou talk to modern-day scientists, and you need alarm bells!?
No. I have found that people that really know what they are talking about can make things seem simple and interesting, rather than obfuscate. When you can't explain something I have to question your grasp.I agree, it is rather hard to explain things in a simple manner when discussing things that require several years of chemistry, physics and math background just to understand the basic principles. Perhaps that is why you are have such a hard time grasping it. Science is not easy.
I have already cited and linked an article that states that there is very little stellar dust between SN1987A and the earth and not a problem with any measurements. Even if it were it wouldn't matter, the fact remains that those isotopes were observed regardless of any dust.
False. None of the reasons you can give us to place the event that far back in real time are valid. (or even mentioned yet!) That is why I am interested in the cobalt and gamma stuff. The distance is unknown. What if it were more like 5000 years away? What if the size therefore was vastly different? Think of how that would neuter your cobalt interpretation?What it represents is that those decay rates are being measured in an event that occurred that occurred 160,000 years ago are the same as today.
No. It demos that there is likely some cobalt, or something that is awful similar that is unknown! No biggie for me.That demonstrates conclusively that physical laws have never changed. You can either deal with it or continue to stick your head in the sand.
Forget the imaginary old ages. OK? Get over it. Never happened. Not real. That is sure. All that remains is to see if the 'decay' and rates stand up.Yes, and by measuring those ratios over that time period they can then calculate the decay rate of that event that occurred 160,000 years ago which is still the same then as now. And you are the one with all the assumption which are completely dreamed up.
Stellar evolution is a Satanic lie. Never happened. Nothing remotely similar. Not even an issue.Comments like that is why we all think you are out just to get a reaction rather than discuss any real science. I find comments like that disgusting.
We shall see.None of that has anything to do with the fact of what was observed and quantified.
Well, they seem like good links. I can go over them and glean loads of comedy material, enough for a full night performance I bet. Probably lots in there I can use against so called science too. But hey, if you think you can use any link, better get the little part you think helps you, quote it, and let's have a look at that!Really? You called them spam before and said they had nothing to do with SN1987A. And they only thing they will show for you is how you misrepresent them.
No, it sure isn't. You are misinformed.THE DISTANCE IS KNOWN.
End of story and your fantasy.
No. I have found that people that really know what they are talking about can make things seem simple and interesting, rather than obfuscate. When you can't explain something I have to question your grasp.
Once again:The link mentioned dust, no? Why not admit it? So your gamma rays then, were they of the cobalt? How much time do they represent? (example...hundreds of days after the event...etc) What do you think it shows?
I won't trade my soul for a computer.Once again you demonstrate your hypocrisy, because the computer you are now using was developed by those modern day scientists and yet computer use doesn't raise any alarm bells for you whatsoever.
I won't trade my soul for a computer.
I won't trade my soul for a computer.
I do this stuff for a living, you do not. The distance is known. You can say otherwise but that is just you typing it on an internet forum.No, it sure isn't. You are misinformed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?