why does the heavy stuff float?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />So, if one were to find first generation stars now, that would constitute a falsification of the standard theory? And if one were to find old generation stars long ago that would falsify the standard theory, right?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For those of us for whom BB is already falsified, one more nail in the coffin wouldn't matter. For BB proponents, nothing can falsify the theory. They would just invent a new ad hoc patch to cover the seeming failure.

For example, they might just claim that some small reservoirs of primitive hydrogen are still lying around, unenriched by metals but still available to form new stars. For young, metal-rich stars, I suppose they'd claim they formed in a dense pocket that produced many generations of supernovas in a short time. -|Tom|-

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_lss.html
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Deep field surveys
A particularly exciting recent development in the study of large-scale structure has been the advent of very deep galaxy surveys, notably those currently being made by the Hubble Space Telescope. These images (below) show galaxies just a couple of billions years after the Big Bang. One of the remarkable puzzles presented by this work is that galaxies appear to form earlier than predicted in most theoretical models. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A very interesting statement made below --
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The astronomers believe the hot gas their instruments detected isn’t blowing outward, because there seem to be no ongoing processes that would cause this<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
seems to me to be very telling in that apparently there is no definitive observation as to whether stuff is flowing outward or inward which explains why I haven't found it either. Astronomers ASSUME matter is flowing inward because they ASSUME there is no mechanism for pushing it outward.


www.world-science.net/othernews/060203_hotgasfrm.html

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Spiral galaxies are thought to form from enormous clouds of intergalactic gas that collapse to form great, spinning disks of stars and gas. The theory predicts large spiral galaxies should be immersed in blobs or “halos” of hot gas left over from the formation process.

<b>Hot gas has been found around spiral galaxies before, but usually blowing outward rather than falling in, inconsistent with the theory, the researchers explained.</b>
“Our observations solve the mystery of the missing hot halos around spiral galaxies,” said Pedersen. “The halos exist, but are so faint that an extremely sensitive telescope such as Chandra is needed to detect them.”

NGC 5746 is a massive spiral galaxy about a 100 million light years from Earth. Its starry disk is visible almost edge-on. <b>The astronomers believe the hot gas their instruments detected isn’t blowing outward, because there seem to be no ongoing processes that would cause this,</b> such as bursts of star formation or violent activity in the core of the galaxy.

<b>If the gas isn’t going outward, it is probably moving inward, attracted by the galaxy’s gravity, they reasoned.</b>“What we found is in good agreement with computer simulations in which galaxies are built up gradually from the merger of smaller clouds of hot gas and dark matter,” said Jesper Rasmussen of the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom and a co-author of the report.

The simulations were carried out by Jesper Sommer-Larsen, also a co-author, and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen. The paper is to appear in the April issue of the research journal New Astronomy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In standard theory, formation of these elements requires much higher temperatures than exist even in the Sun's core. So supernova explosions are required to produce them. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wonder...could it be that "temperature" is an artifact of the gravity paradigm? Is it that, if gravity were the catalyst, then such and such high temperature would be required to do this or that. But if the fusion process involved something else, some kind of catalyst, maybe "temperature" wouldn't matter that much.

Also, we don't "know" the temperature of the Sun's core. It has been calculated using a particular theory of fusion (I surmise) i.e., The temperature of the core, is, "according to fusion theory" so and so. But what if gravitaionally induced fusion theory is not the primary operating principle? Or just part of it?

What would a collasping magnetic field do? It certainly seems to do a good job on the chronosphere, where temperatures are a hundred times hotter above the photosphere than at the photosphere . THe entire sun is a vast array of magnetic fields doing who knows what.
My point is not about the fields as much as the collasping fields.

Take a 12 volt battery, hook it up to a car coil, grab the secondary lead, cut the primary lead, and you 'll have a feel for what happens.

Tom, when I look at a picture of a Hubble deep sky survey, and I miilions of galaxies, am I seeing supernovae too? How many had to happen in order to seed all the galaxies?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />when I look at a picture of a Hubble deep sky survey, and I see miilions of galaxies, am I seeing supernovae too? How many had to happen in order to seed all the galaxies?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have never seen that figure estimated. But I'd hazard a guess that there would need to be hundreds of millions of supernovae, so very roughly one per 1-10 years at redshifts higher than we can presently see supernovae (which is only out to ~ z &lt; 2). -|Tom|-