|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
First stars
In article , jacobnavia
writes: Le 19/05/2018 =E0 11:09, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a =E9crit : Again, you are assuming a specific model, based on essentially no information. I am assuming that a quasar can be fed only by 1) gas 2) stars Why this assumption? Gas is not possible (heats up and stops the process) so it must be whole= stars... What else? Primordial black holes. You have no problem postulating that the big bang didn't happen, but are afraid of considering primordial black holes? Which is more probable: you assume that only stars and gas could possibly feed a black hole, then find arguments against them---is it more probable that this somehow concludes that something is wrong with big-bang cosmology, or that perhaps your assumptions are wrong? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
First stars
In article , jacobnavia
writes: Le 19/05/2018 =E0 11:09, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a =E9crit : The star mentioned above has oxygen, what implies at least several generations of stars to produce it, Why? One generation will produce oxygen. Yes, but when the star explodes that oxygen will be enormouly diluted in the surrounding gas... To make an oxygen signal visible 13 Gy away the concentration of oxyygen should be quite high. Are you just making this up or did you get it from somewhere? Note also that the first stars might have been VERY massive, producing correspondingly more oxygen (no, I am not just making this up). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
First stars
In article ,
jacobnavia writes: To make an oxygen signal visible 13 Gy away the concentration of oxyygen should be quite high. What mass of (doubly ionized) oxygen did you derive? Concentration doesn't matter, of course, but presumably mass was what you meant. You'll have to assume a density, but 10^3 cm^-3 would be a reasonable guess. I'm surprised the authors didn't do this calculation, but maybe they considered the density too speculative. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
First stars
[[Mod. note -- I apologise for the delay in processing this article,
which was originally submitted on Thursday 2018-05-24. -- jt]] Le 20/05/2018 Ã* 22:05, Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] a écritÂ*: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.04317.pdf *This* paper (1805.04317) describes an object at redshift z=4.75, not redshift z=17. (The paper does refer to "z=17", but that's a*magnitude* (log of brightness in a certain wavelength range), not a redshift. You can tell this because the paper says "magnitude z=17".) Mr Thonburg is right. I have misunderstood that article. I apologize for this error. jacob |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vampire Stars, Flying Vampire Stars, Exploding Zombie Stars! | Mark Earnest[_2_] | Misc | 0 | November 18th 17 01:33 PM |
5 star system not enough. Need to use 20, 40, 60 one stars, 20, 40,60 five stars. It becomes labeling. He loves this group. | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 7th 08 09:29 AM |
Gravity of Stars = The light Energy of Stars | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 0 | March 13th 08 12:06 AM |
Gravity of Stars = The light Energy of Stars | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | March 10th 08 01:29 PM |
Stars: Solar Mass and Life Span Question - Larger Stars? | Brett Aubrey | Misc | 2 | January 22nd 05 05:06 AM |