beecee

It's thought that with the actual great distances between stars, that stellar collisions are relatively rare galaxies do merge. But when speaking of the universe and the numbers of galaxies out there, "rare"takes on a whole new meaning. Consider also that so far aLIGO and VIRGO have detected 5 BH collisions and 1 Neutron star/s collisions. Your inquiries welcome by the way and no naivity detected at all....thanks.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-aussie-telescope-mysterious-fast-radio.html Aussie telescope almost doubles known number of mysterious 'fast radio bursts' October 10, 2018, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research Australian researchers using a CSIRO radio telescope in Western Australia have nearly doubled the known number of 'fast radio bursts'— powerful flashes of radio waves from deep space. The team's discoveries include the closest and brightest fast radio bursts ever detected. Their findings were reported today in the journal Nature. Fast radio bursts come from all over the sky and last for just milliseconds. Scientists don't know what causes them but it must involve incredible energy—equivalent to the amount released by the Sun in 80 years. "We've found 20 fast radio bursts in a year, almost doubling the number detected worldwide since they were discovered in 2007," said lead author Dr. Ryan Shannon, from Swinburne University of Technology and the OzGrav ARC Centre of Excellence. "Using the new technology of the Australia Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), we've also proved that fast radio bursts are coming from the other side of the Universe rather than from our own galactic neighbourhood." Co-author Dr. Jean-Pierre Macquart, from the Curtin University node of the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR), said bursts travel for billions of years and occasionally pass through clouds of gas. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-aussie-telescope-mysterious-fast-radio.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0588-y The dispersion–brightness relation for fast radio bursts from a wide-field survey: Abstract: Despite considerable efforts over the past decade, only 34 fast radio bursts—intense bursts of radio emission from beyond our Galaxy—have been reported1,2. Attempts to understand the population as a whole have been hindered by the highly heterogeneous nature of the searches, which have been conducted with telescopes of different sensitivities, at a range of radio frequencies, and in environments corrupted by different levels of radio-frequency interference from human activity. Searches have been further complicated by uncertain burst positions and brightnesses—a consequence of the transient nature of the sources and the poor angular resolution of the detecting instruments. The discovery of repeating bursts from one source3, and its subsequent localization4 to a dwarf galaxy at a distance of 3.7 billion light years, confirmed that the population of fast radio bursts is located at cosmological distances. However, the nature of the emission remains elusive. Here we report a well controlled, wide-field radio survey for these bursts. We found 20, none of which repeated during follow-up observations between 185–1,097 hours after the initial detections. The sample includes both the nearest and the most energetic bursts detected so far. The survey demonstrates that there is a relationship between burst dispersion and brightness and that the high-fluence bursts are the nearby analogues of the more distant events found in higher-sensitivity, narrower-field surveys5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is our best guess as to what these FRB's are......The instant a mass collapses to a BH? Neutron star/s collisions? and how are they related to GRB's? Any other suggestions?

Because it is the only scientific answer...Or do you propose some sort of god? or magical spaghetti monster? Well then applying your own questions to that, how did that/it/he/she come about. And the question that never ceases to amaze me with you lot preaching creation and god, why then come to a science forum? What if I went to the local church next Sunday and started shouting god was a myth? Again what prompts you to get on your white charger and seemingly conduct some crusade on a science forum?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. The theory of the origin of life is Abiogenesis and while as yet we have no evidence to support it, it is the only scientific answer as to how life first came to be. We may also throw in Panspermia with that, although as yet no evidence. The theory of evolution though is certain, and just to ruffle your feathers some more, if we like to take it back even further, the elements that go to make up all life were forged in the belly of stars. Yes, you Johnny are nothing but star stuff! Many uneducated religious individuals, have been utterly brain washed and that find there way onto a science forums, are hypocrites, liars and uneducated fools.

I really hate to enlighten someone as enlightened as you obviously think you are, but the theory of evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory about how life evolved and is supported by loads of observational evidence and as certain as anyone could wish for. The origin of life is actually Abiogenesis and although as yet we have no evidence supporting it, it in reality is the only scientific explanation as to how life first arose within the universe....Panspermia may also have played a part but as yet no evidence. So please, in your own words, " stop poison the youths by saying most scientists believe in chemical evolution" they do...its called science. again though off topic!

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-high-scandium-galaxy-giant-black.html High levels of scandium near the galaxy's giant black hole were illusory, astronomers find October 10, 2018, Lund University Astronomers from Lund University in Sweden have now found the explanation to a recent mystery at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy: the high levels of scandium discovered last spring near the galaxy's giant black hole were in fact an optical illusion. Last spring, researchers published a study about the apparent presence of astonishing and dramatically high levels of three different elements in red giant stars, located less than three light years away from the big black hole at the centre of our galaxy. Various possible explanations were presented, for example that the high levels were a result of earlier stars being disrupted as they fall into the black hole, or a result of debris from the collisions of neutron stars. Now another group of astronomers from Lund University among others, in collaboration with UCLA in California, have found an explanation for the high levels of scandium, vanadium and yttrium. They argue that the so-called spectral lines presented last spring were actually an optical illusion. Spectral lines are used to find out which elements a star contains—by using its own light. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-high-scandium-galaxy-giant-black.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aadb97/meta Evidence against Anomalous Compositions for Giants in the Galactic Nuclear Star Cluster: Abstract: Very strong Sc i lines have recently been found in cool M giants in the Nuclear Star Cluster (NSC) in the Galactic center. Interpreting these as anomalously high scandium abundances in the Galactic center would imply a unique enhancement signature and chemical evolution history for NSCs, and a potential test for models of chemical enrichment in these objects. We present high resolution K-band spectra (NIRSPEC/Keck II) of cool M giants situated in the solar neighborhood and compare them with spectra of M giants in the NSC. We clearly identify strong Sc i lines in our solar neighborhood sample as well as in the NSC sample. The strong Sc i lines in M giants are therefore not unique to stars in the NSC and we argue that the strong lines are a property of the line formation process that currently escapes accurate theoretical modeling. We further conclude that for giant stars with effective temperatures below approximately 3800 K these Sc i lines should not be used for deriving the scandium abundances in any astrophysical environment until we better understand how these lines are formed. We also discuss the lines of vanadium, titanium, and yttrium identified in the spectra, which demonstrate a similar striking increase in strength below 3500 K effective temperature.

I can understand your sentiments, but I'm not sure turning a blind eye even towards such idiocy is the way to go. My thoughts are he appears to be getting more desperate as he proceeds with his nonsense and in time, like his other threads it will probably be shut down. With the possibility of young students lurking on the forum, I believe his nonsense should be refuted at every turn. Wow! It appears someone is having some problem with my posts and giving me "reds" even a couple of reputable links! Not sure what he/she is trying to prove....perhaps another god botherer has been offended!

At this stage it appears now he has played every card in the deck....I saw the victim card yesterday, and now its the joker. I suppose someone that needs to add some semblance of credence to his nonsense, gets quite desperate.

You mistake hostility with the scientific methodology and the right, indeed the duty of science to question with utmost vigour the picture you are trying to portray as far as science is concerned. In all your threads so far the only claims that are false are yours. You claim calmness, rationality and this being a debate forum, but others have made the observation that you actually appear argumentitive and just contrary, particularly in the face of reputable evidence. Perhaps though if anyone should pass any judgement, they need to research all the threads, and the nature of those threads you have been active in to form an opinion. Well perhaps the amount of obvious ,misinterpretations, the amount of obtuseness, the ignoring of evidence put to invalidate your stance, all add up to people making the observation that you probably have an agenda. Again though, as per my previous comment, perhaps though if anyone should pass any judgement, they need to research all the threads, and the nature of those threads you have been active in to form an opinion. I believe they will come to the same conclusion I have and a commonality in those threads with regards to yourself.

I don't believe you know what you are saying, let alone what anyone else is saying. You need to consider very carefully your attitude in this thread and its similarity with your attitude in other threads of yours that have been closed. In essence I have yet seen anyone actually agree with you other then back a bit when some religious bloke claiming god made 50 year old trees in a day! Your agenda, closeted as it is, is probably the reason, and your fanatical disposition in taking philosophical jargon over scientific discipline and facts.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Neptune_and_Pluto.html Mathematical discovery of planets The first planet to be discovered was Uranus by William and Caroline Herschel on 13 March 1781. It was discovered by the fact that it showed a disk when viewed through even a fairly low powered telescope. The only other planets which have been discovered are Neptune and Pluto. These were predicted using ingenious mathematical arguments based on Newton's laws of gravitation and then observed near their predicted locations Stop being dramatic, it doesn't work with me. You have the evidence as well as a couple of references...your silly continued attempts at denial, are just that.

Rubbish and again total misinterpretation and denial once again. If Newtonian had not have accounted for Neptunes position, we would not have used its mathematics to calculate it, and I dare say, lengthy and complicated space endeavours such as Voyagers 1 and 2 would have had problems. Neptune was predicted by Newtonian mathematics before it was even observed.

Newtonian mechanics accounted for the discrepency in the orbit of Uranus and history validates that claim. Not sure what maths from what universe you are pretending to use, but as others have more then once noted, you appear in total denial, are obtuse and constantly misinterpret what offends your own view. The precession in the orbit of Mercury was too precise for Newtonian to totally account for...GR did the job. The claim is supported by the evidence.

The Discovery of Neptune | How Le Verrier used Newtonian Mechanics to predict another planet? The Discovery of Neptune in 1846 is regarded as one of the most legendary moments in the consolidation of classical mechanics. Discovering a distant world in the darkness of space by the use of mathematical reasoning became one of the late triumphs of the Enlightenment and Newton's vision. Sorry I'm not a mathematician. The previous video should explain. But let me continue with my mainstream education of you....Newtonian mechanics besides being instrumental and responsible for the discovery of Neptune, is also used in near all space endeavours by NASA and other agencies...particularly the Voyager 1 and 2 rendezvous with 2 and 4 planets respectively. I find it rather ironic that you with your continued misinterpretations, denials and obtuseness, should question me about logic. The irony meter has blown up!

You are in total denial. Uranus'anomaly was predicted to be due to another planet, which using Newtonian mechanics was mathematically pin pointed before it was observed. As Newtonian predicted! If on the other hand, no planet was found to exist in that spot, doubt would have been thrown on the accuracy of Newtonian. Actually Newtonian's limited accuracy was illustrated by the precession in the orbit of Mercury, which was explained by GR in 1919.

Once again, all this shows is your apparent ignorance and then misinterpretation of science and history. Again the apparent abnormal orbit of Uranus according to Newtonian mechanics predicted another planet further out. Bingo! That planet was found and named Neptune. In fact Neptune was mathematically pin pointed by Newtonian mechanics before it was observed. In other words observation did not clash with theory, rather observation aligned with the principals of the theory!... Not bad for a approximate theory!!

No you miss the point, and have in all threads so far you have participated in on this matter. God, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny are unscientific explanations, without any empirical evidence to support such mythical concepts. Then you pretend you don't accept any ID and/or god in the next breath. It's not scientific therefor it falls short as any explanation worthy of consideration. My apologies to the mods. This is again off topic. Again well said. We may well still call it a theory, but it is far closer to fact, and I believe its simply force of habit and convention that we still call it a theory.

May as well say Santa or the Tooth Fairy did it [it being created the universe of course]...your obtuseness never ceases to amaze me. God or any magical spaghettit monster is simply unscientific and myth. It cannot and never has stood up to scientific protocol or investigative process. Thou appears to be again grasping at straws. If you prefer faith in myth over evidenced based scientific inquirey and process, then that's your business. Although it appears contradictory as you have also claimed you don't believe any god exists. Which is it? What makes even less sense is your own complaints re myself or anyone that dares take god botherers to task, and instead argues against evolution, the scientific method and all it entails. This forum and others I have been a part of [two] often has individuals that see the need to criticise science and all it stands for. Closeted god botherers they have been revealed to be. Makes even less sense on a science forum, but it would certainly satisfy your apparent requirements on a religious forum. As you have been told many times, and cunningly ignore, any scientific theory is always open for modification/change etc...as long as it continues to agree with further and further observation the more certain it becomes...eg: evolution is at the top most rung...others close by SR, GR the BB. Where the lack of agreement appears is only with those critical of science because it actually has demoted any need for any god or IDer into oblivion, and continues to push it further back into oblivion...even the crusading closeted god botherers.

well said. The fact that the theory of evolution is correct and that any ID is nothing more then myth. Of course it will! That's what this thread is about.

I actually got hooked on Sagan after watching his fantastic "Cosmos" series in the mid seventies. Dawkins no nonsense approch has though grown on me in the last couple of years. Both it can be said are knowledgable reputable working scientists. My preference with Sagan also was contributed by his book "The Pale Blue Dot" and who could forget the excellent narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

It was and is a theory of the evolution of life on Earth. It is not/was not a theory of Abiogenesis, although scientifically speaking Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life got started. Adding of course the hypothetical possibility of Panspermia. Yes, a credit to the man that he withstood all the "hammering and opposition of a society that was greatly controlled by the church, and the telling tale is that his ideas and theories have gone from strength to strength and is now the most certain scientific theory we have and will never be surpassed but aded on to.....a blanket statement?, yep and you can quote me on that.

Umm have you been reading this thread? I'm not accepting anything by any church, I'm simply making the point that the evidence for evolution and the BB is so strong that even the church recognises them...probably an attempt to garner some respect.

Of course it will. Just as Darwinian or any other mainstream theory also needed to run the gauntlet. The trouble with yourself and your obvious distrust for mainstream science is that you cannot invalidate or predict more then the incumbent. Now again, if the theory of the evolution of life is not near certain, what do you propose. Please for once be upfront. So far in your short time here, you have taken me to task for criticising god botherers, doubting the scientific method and its foundations, the theory of evolution and probably something else that slips my mind at this time. And you tell me you aint a god botherer?

The most telling fact re Reg's apparent mistrust/denial/misinterpretation/obtuseness re the theory of evolution, is that the Catholic church has even recognised it, along with the BB...which then obviously puts a total new light on that mythical book they call the bible. Of course though then they fall back to there "god of the gaps" faith based explanation. The words of Pope Franky https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/28/pope-francis-comments-on-evolution-and-the-catholic-church

That is exactly what Reg has done in at least three threads so far.....quotes out of context, total misinterpretations, and just plain old porky pies!