Yousuf Khan wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Is there any estimates about if a quasar were to exist today, how
bright it would be comparatively in our sky?
Yousuf Khan


http://www.nrao.edu/pr/1998/quasars/


This seems to indicate that nearby quasars are pretty normal looking in
visible light, but they're lit up in radio light. But aren't quasars out
in the distance supposed to be very bright in the visible?

Yousuf Khan

This is a over generalization... but black holes in younger
galaxies enjoyed more available gas and stars to "consume"
and therefore where "brighter" energy sources than nearby
older quasars. You would have to look at individual quasar
spectral data to answer your questions about wavelength
patterns.

Dear Yousuf Khan:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
oups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Are there parts of space so far
away from us that it's expanding away from us *faster* than
the speed of light?

We expect so, yes.

Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?

How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin, virtual
photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

Isn't it possible that given only what we can observe, we
will always come up with a finite age for the universe, and
it will always be the same age limit no matter when we
do the calculation?

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a billion
years younger.

In fact, wasn't there an observation made at one time, that
some of the oldest stars seem to be older than the age of
the universe itself? I'm not sure if that's been resolved or
not.

There is always someone who wants to look for the "unfinished
edges". What we don't have is a lot of stuff suddenly entering
our light cone from "somewhere else".

but just the curtain around
a part of the universe that is now out of contact with us.
An
endlessly expanding universe sure, but one that never had
a beginning?

It is also expected to have had a beginning. The current
distribution of matter around us is not pure iron, which an
inifnite Universe would produce. Nor are there iron to
hydrogen
conversion engines predicted or observable, with anywhere near
the amounts required.

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly
iron?

The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad helium.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.

Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter (iron,
hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores
(including
neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which somehow migrate
out into
the halo over time?

These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron stars
and stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT consuming the
dust and producing the ever-present X-rays? Like their
counterparts in less dusty areas manage to do...

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of gravity
are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws that
we will eventually discover?

Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see
several galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.

As for an iron to hydrogen conversion engine, why do we need
one?

Because stars make it, and there isn't much of it around in the
stars.

Doesn't matter just pop up out of nowhere in the vacuum?

Not unless it converted back to energy and disappears again.

Near a
blackhole its anti-particles could get swallowed while the
particles would get boosted right out of the blackhole's
vicinity in the jet.

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very
much mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the
holes we have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a workable
hypothesis.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".

There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our ticket
is one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the boonies...
no matter how large or old the Universe is.

David A. Smith

In message D0SPe.129308$E95.42973@fed1read01, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
(dlzc)" writes
Dear Yousuf Khan:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
roups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Are there parts of space so far
away from us that it's expanding away from us *faster* than
the speed of light?

We expect so, yes.

Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?

How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin, virtual
photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

I'm in a nit-picking mood :-) so I'll note that should presumably
photons, not just light.
But there's also neutrinos, though we don't yet have the ability to
detect them at cosmological distances.
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

I'm in a nit-picking mood :-) so I'll note that should presumably
photons, not just light.
But there's also neutrinos, though we don't yet have the ability to
detect them at cosmological distances.

I'm not sure what you mean in this context by cosmological distances.
We captured neutrino's from another (nearby galaxy) in 1987. Some of
the SN 1987A Neutrino Burst and Visible Explosion Data:

11 Anti-Neutrinos detected in the Kamiokande II Detector, Feb 23, 1987
7h 35m 35s UTC (± 1 min) (Start)

8 Anti-Neutrinos detected in the Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven (IMB)
Detector, Feb 23, 1987 7h 35m 41.37s UT (± 10 ms) (Start)

Optical Discovery: V = 5.0 mag 0n 24.122 Feb 1987...
Ref: Lang, Astrophysical Formulae Vol I, 3rd ed, pg 403 (1998)

In message bF%Pe.286864$_o.243143@attbi_s71, Sam Wormley
writes
Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

I'm in a nit-picking mood :-) so I'll note that should presumably
photons, not just light.
But there's also neutrinos, though we don't yet have the ability to
detect them at cosmological distances.

I'm not sure what you mean in this context by cosmological distances.
We captured neutrino's from another (nearby galaxy) in 1987. Some of
the SN 1987A Neutrino Burst and Visible Explosion Data:


I should have excluded SN 1987A, but that's the limit at the moment. A
supernova in M31 would require a much more sensitive detector, as it
would presumably produce less than one event.
Neutrinos are (also presumably) reaching us from behind the last
scattering surface and could tell us about conditions there.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?


How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin, virtual
photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

That's why I said "assuming by some discovery", which should obviously
mean it's hypothetical.

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a billion
years younger.

Okay that's a good possibility, how do we know the CMBR is cooling? Are
we measuring microscopic changes in temperature of the CMBR and then
extrapolating backwards? Or are we just taking our theories about the
temperature of the Big Bang and curve fitting backwards from today to a
billion years ago? Basically what is the mark left on things from a
billion years ago that what would indicate the CMBR was warmer back then?

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly
iron?


The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad helium.

Yeah, the spectrum of the stars is like that, but what about the halo?
There's little to no sprectrum to be seen there.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.


Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter (iron,
hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.

What if Milgrom's MOND is right at least to some extent? It won't banish
the existence of dark matter, but the dark matter itself doesn't have to
be as massive as we need it to be right now.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores
(including
neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which somehow migrate
out into
the halo over time?


These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron stars
and stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT consuming the
dust and producing the ever-present X-rays? Like their
counterparts in less dusty areas manage to do...

Okay, understood. Then let's change the parameters a little bit, how
about long dead star cores, but only the type below 1.4 solar masses,
and not the exotic ones above 1.4 solar masses, like neutrons and
blacks. Again, the sieving effect caused by some quirky nature of MOND.

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of gravity
are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws that
we will eventually discover?


Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see
several galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.

Maybe I should've been a bit more specific when I said that the theories
of gravity are undergoing modification, before. I *was* thinking of the
MOND theories partially. But it isn't just MOND there's other anamolies
being presented here too. Those anamolies can be explained by MOND, dark
matter, superstring theories, etc.

SPACE.com -- The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange
Puzzle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_041018.html

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very
much mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the
holes we have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a workable
hypothesis.

Well, at various points in the life of the universe a lot of mass has
been locked away inside blackholes. Stephen Hawking said that blackholes
radiate their mass away as antimatter particles fall into them,
releasing their associated matter particles to keep living. If there is
a natural skew to the universe that prefers that a few more percentage
of antiparticles will fall into blackholes rather than particles, then
perhaps blackholes are a form of cosmic bank vault. In fact, Hawking
said that we should just now be seeing some microscopic blackholes with
masses the size of mountains or asteroids created during the big bang to
be completely disappearing right now, simply from the effects of vaccuum
energy eating away at them. At some point all blackholes (even the
biggest galactic ones) will have eaten away at most of the material
nearest to them, and there will be nothing else falling in to any great
rate, at that point the vaccuum energy eating away at their insides
might become a greater effect. Right now we're still depositing into the
blackhole banks, later we might be withdrawing.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".


There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our ticket
is one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the boonies...
no matter how large or old the Universe is.

And the Dark Energy force that's forcing the galaxies apart at an
accelerating rate, might at some future point switch over to a
decelerating and reversing force which could end up bringing everything
back together. But that might only be triggered by the universe becoming
sufficiently cold. No evidence for the Dark Energy doing that yet, but
then again there was no evidence for Dark Energy at all just a few years
ago -- and now there is.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?



How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin, virtual
photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.


That's why I said "assuming by some discovery", which should obviously
mean it's hypothetical.

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a billion
years younger.


Okay that's a good possibility, how do we know the CMBR is cooling? Are
we measuring microscopic changes in temperature of the CMBR and then
extrapolating backwards? Or are we just taking our theories about the
temperature of the Big Bang and curve fitting backwards from today to a
billion years ago? Basically what is the mark left on things from a
billion years ago that what would indicate the CMBR was warmer back then?

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly iron?



The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad helium.


Yeah, the spectrum of the stars is like that, but what about the halo?
There's little to no sprectrum to be seen there.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.



Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter (iron,
hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.


What if Milgrom's MOND is right at least to some extent? It won't banish
the existence of dark matter, but the dark matter itself doesn't have to
be as massive as we need it to be right now.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores (including
neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which somehow migrate out into
the halo over time?



These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron stars and
stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT consuming the dust and
producing the ever-present X-rays? Like their counterparts in less
dusty areas manage to do...


Okay, understood. Then let's change the parameters a little bit, how
about long dead star cores, but only the type below 1.4 solar masses,
and not the exotic ones above 1.4 solar masses, like neutrons and
blacks. Again, the sieving effect caused by some quirky nature of MOND.

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of gravity are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws that
we will eventually discover?



Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see several
galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.


Maybe I should've been a bit more specific when I said that the theories
of gravity are undergoing modification, before. I *was* thinking of the
MOND theories partially. But it isn't just MOND there's other anamolies
being presented here too. Those anamolies can be explained by MOND, dark
matter, superstring theories, etc.

SPACE.com -- The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange
Puzzle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_041018.html

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very much
mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the holes we
have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a workable hypothesis.


Well, at various points in the life of the universe a lot of mass has
been locked away inside blackholes. Stephen Hawking said that blackholes
radiate their mass away as antimatter particles fall into them,
releasing their associated matter particles to keep living. If there is
a natural skew to the universe that prefers that a few more percentage
of antiparticles will fall into blackholes rather than particles, then
perhaps blackholes are a form of cosmic bank vault. In fact, Hawking
said that we should just now be seeing some microscopic blackholes with
masses the size of mountains or asteroids created during the big bang to
be completely disappearing right now, simply from the effects of vaccuum
energy eating away at them. At some point all blackholes (even the
biggest galactic ones) will have eaten away at most of the material
nearest to them, and there will be nothing else falling in to any great
rate, at that point the vaccuum energy eating away at their insides
might become a greater effect. Right now we're still depositing into the
blackhole banks, later we might be withdrawing.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".



There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our ticket is
one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the boonies... no
matter how large or old the Universe is.


And the Dark Energy force that's forcing the galaxies apart at an
accelerating rate, might at some future point switch over to a
decelerating and reversing force which could end up bringing everything
back together. But that might only be triggered by the universe becoming
sufficiently cold. No evidence for the Dark Energy doing that yet, but
then again there was no evidence for Dark Energy at all just a few years
ago -- and now there is.

Yousuf Khan

MOND is Dead? ...maybe
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/density.html#MOND
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html

22 Oct 2002 - The Chandra X-ray Observatory presented evidence
against the MOdification of Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) alternative
to dark matter theories. The August 2002 Scientific American has a
long article about MOND. The hot X-ray emitting gas around the
galaxy NGC 720 forms an ellipsoidal cloud, which requires an
ellipsoidal gravitational potential well. While an ellipsoidal
cloud of dark matter could provide such a well, MOND would
necessarily give a spherical potential well. In general MOND works
well on the scale of individual galaxies, but not for clusters of
galaxies. So why is MOND only maybe dead? Its supporters like
Milgrom are persistent and clever, and they may come up with a
MONDian explanation for NGC 720.

Dear Yousuf Khan:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?


How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin,
virtual photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

That's why I said "assuming by some discovery", which should
obviously mean it's hypothetical.

Then you really mean "non physical", since all geometry is based
on light.

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a
billion years younger.

Okay that's a good possibility, how do we know the CMBR is
cooling? Are we measuring microscopic changes in temperature
of the CMBR and then extrapolating backwards? Or are we just
taking our theories about the temperature of the Big Bang and
curve fitting backwards from today to a billion years ago?
Basically what is the mark left on things from a billion years
ago
that what would indicate the CMBR was warmer back then?

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...e.html?1132005
.... CMBR interacting with galaxies some 7 billion years ago...
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-27-00.html
.... CMBR interacting some 10 billion years ago...
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/s...pic217658.shtm
.... about a billion years ago, the CMBR temperature was about 9.1
K. Measured by two different researchers, with different
physical models.

It is cooling.

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly
iron?


The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad
helium.

Yeah, the spectrum of the stars is like that, but what about
the halo? There's little to no sprectrum to be seen there.

As far back as we can see is mostly hydrogen and helium. It is
written into every point source.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.


Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter
(iron, hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.

What if Milgrom's MOND is right at least to some extent? It
won't
banish the existence of dark matter, but the dark matter itself
doesn't have to be as massive as we need it to be right now.

MOND isn't the answer. Neither is Dark Matter, in my opinion.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores
(including neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which
somehow migrate out into the halo over time?


These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron
stars and stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT
consuming the dust and producing the ever-present X-rays?
Like their counterparts in less dusty areas manage to do...

Okay, understood. Then let's change the parameters a little
bit, how about long dead star cores, but only the type below
1.4 solar masses, and not the exotic ones above 1.4 solar
masses, like neutrons and blacks.

Stable neutron stars are 0.8 solar masses. How far down will you
define "too small to detect"?

Again, the sieving effect caused by some quirky nature of MOND.

Concentrate on getting a star drive. The rest is armchair
quarterbacking.

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of
gravity are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws
that
we will eventually discover?


Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see
several galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.

Maybe I should've been a bit more specific when I said that
the theories of gravity are undergoing modification, before.
I *was* thinking of the MOND theories partially. But it isn't
just
MOND there's other anamolies being presented here too.
Those anamolies can be explained by MOND, dark matter,
superstring theories, etc.

SPACE.com -- The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would
Probe Strange Puzzle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_041018.html

If it isn't a mystery we don't send a probe. And there are as
many flavors of solutions, as there are people looking at the
data.

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very
much mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the
holes we have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a
workable hypothesis.

Well, at various points in the life of the universe a lot of
mass
has been locked away inside blackholes. Stephen Hawking said
that blackholes radiate their mass away as antimatter particles
fall into them, releasing their associated matter particles to
keep
living.

As long as their temperature is above the "background
temperature", yes.

If there is a natural skew to the universe that prefers that a
few more
percentage of antiparticles will fall into blackholes rather
than
particles, then perhaps blackholes are a form of cosmic bank
vault. In fact, Hawking said that we should just now be seeing
some microscopic blackholes with masses the size of
mountains or asteroids created during the big bang to be
completely disappearing right now, simply from the effects of
vaccuum energy eating away at them. At some point all
blackholes (even the biggest galactic ones) will have eaten
away at most of the material nearest to them, and there will
be nothing else falling in to any great rate, at that point the
vaccuum energy eating away at their insides might become
a greater effect. Right now we're still depositing into the
blackhole banks, later we might be withdrawing.

I suspect that black holes are simply "pushpins", around which
galaxies coalesce. The amount of matter that infalls is
inconsequential. It is not that their gravity is abnormally
high, just that their "surface" is abnormally small. Makes them
even harder to hit. And, if they are spinning, will actually
serve to boost nearby masses into *higher* orbitals.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every
year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".


There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our
ticket is one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the
boonies... no matter how large or old the Universe is.

And the Dark Energy force that's forcing the galaxies apart at
an accelerating rate, might at some future point switch over to
a decelerating and reversing force which could end up bringing
everything back together.

There are some theories that hold this to be true, yes.

But that might only be triggered by the universe becoming
sufficiently cold. No evidence for the Dark Energy doing that
yet,
but then again there was no evidence for Dark Energy at all
just
a few years ago -- and now there is.

I suspect both Dark Matter and Dark Energy to end up being huge
fudge factors. I am usually wrong, however. Just don't look to
them to stay "unmodified and eternal".

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:


Stable neutron stars are 0.8 solar masses. How far down will you
define "too small to detect"?



Tell me where you get this figure of 0.8 solar masses for stable
neutron stars. Thanks.

Dear Sam Wormley:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:70RQe.292294$_o.100507@attbi_s71...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:


Stable neutron stars are 0.8 solar masses. How far down will
you define "too small to detect"?

Tell me where you get this figure of 0.8 solar masses for
stable
neutron stars. Thanks.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/mar13/bhform.html
.... greater than 2-3 solar masses are unstable

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state....3/extreme.html
.... neutron degeneracy pressure can sustain 1.2 -2 solar masses

http://www.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/05/05-190.pdf
.... graph on page 28 (still about 0.5 to 2.2 solar masses)

I may have remembered a particular neutron star's mass, rather
than the "only stable neutron star mass" "or the upper limit on
neutron star mass is". Sorry for any confusion this might have
created.

David A. Smith