Astronomy and Cosmology

Can all the other elements found in nature be created by one massive supernova? Or does it take several supernovas to create all the heavier elements? Is it possible that the first stars that formed after the big bang could have been so massive that they created all the elements found in nature when they exploded? Is is possible that there are even heavier elements we are not aware of that could be created by a supernova massive enough? Maybe in some regions of the universe there are found elements heavier than uranium or plutonium.

There are several questions embedded in this post, plus, I was unsure whether to put this in computer science...so maybe more appropriate there. For my dissertation, I'm looking at the effects of astrophysical jets within radio galaxies...there is a clear link between galaxy evolution and the role of jets (specifically star formation rates). I think to get a clearer understanding of such an environment, you need to model that environment. I've been looking at modelling environments. The first one I came across was RAMSES code, which is built on Fortran. So my first question is, I thought Fortran was more or less redundant, so is it worth trying to understand …

I apologize for my poor English. I had a new computer simulation. We set up each model from the birth of universe to the present, and calculated GPE using computer simulation in each level. As a result, we could verify that “pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass” explains inflation of the early universe and decelerating expansion, and present accelerating expansion in time series. This simulation is showing incredible results. It not only explains the total energy of the universe, flatness, and the essence (Total zero energy, pair creation of negative energy and positive energy) of the process of birth of the universe, but it explains…

Here is the press release. "Seven years ago, astronomers boggled when they found the first runaway star flying out of our Galaxy at a speed of 1.5 million miles per hour. The discovery intrigued theorists, who wondered: If a star can get tossed outward at such an extreme velocity, could the same thing happen to planets? New research shows that the answer is yes. Not only do runaway planets exist, but some of them zoom through space at a few percent of the speed of light - up to 30 million miles per hour." Okay, so I just lazily plugged in some values on wolframalpha and I'm a little alarmed at the result. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=13000000m+asteroid+impa…

The new type IIa supernova in Messier 95 has been tentitively linked with an individual star. New supernova

The gold in my molars, the uranium within the earth, and all the other heavy elements in our solar system were once "created" by our local "mother" star that had gone supernova -- you know the drill. Its demise was caused by lack of fuel (hydrogen, helium ....iron) to burn, so it went boom, and all resultant local matter was spread around thinly in a nebula (I'm assuming). So now, after a few billion years, here comes our newly-ignited Sun and solar system, rich with hydrogen, and helium! So where did this "new" hydrogen come from? The supernova blasted away any hope of remaining hydrogen. Did gravity from the resultant nebula just suck in more hydrogen from a few li…

How can a cosmological constant be constant? Any energy density or force should still follow conservation principles, shouldn't it? So how can a constant remain stable or even accelerate without some sort of input? Also shouldn't this conservation law be apllied to gravity? Does gravity weaken over time by energy conservation? It seems to me that force should also be accounted for when figuring the overall density of the universe, and not just baryonic matter. It seems that energy or force can be detrimental to a systems density or pressure. Why is it not included in such a measurement? Just some short questions for now.

Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy & Dark Matter Should we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett) Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of "inflaton" point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic (1/r2) one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleratio…

So a new goldilocks planet has been discovered 20 light years away from us! Pretty exciting right? Scientists believe it might be able to sustain human life! but a few major problems stand before us The planet doesn't rotate on it's axis...at all so one side is considerably darker and colder while the other side is extremely bright and frying radiating heat (unless of course they find water preseent, that would change everything I've said tremendously. But for now let's just go with what we know The star it orbits around is a red dwarf sun which emits alot less energy and heat then our sun This planet is also three times the earths mass It's 20 LIGHT YEARS AWAY eve…

Ok so as you all know in the process of a black hole forming, two burst of energy hurtle through space, the two bursts of energy are called gamma ray bursts. Gmma ray bursts esentially vaporize anything it comes close to. So my question is, considering there are a number of wondering nomadic black holes in the universe, what are the chances of our planet/galaxy getting vaporized by a gamma ray burst?

As pre-star 'cloud clumps' coalesce, collapse, and 'disk-down', they remain comparatively cool, e.g., ~3000K on descending Hayashi tracks. Before the central star reaches the MS, with 'first light' core H-burning ignition, wouldn't the circum-proto-stellar disk be colder, than when its central star is on the MS? Thus, the "snow line", beyond which giant planets can form, would have been much closer to the central proto-star. So, couldn't now-hot-Jupiters originally have been "fast forming cold sub-binary companions", which only became "blow torched", by the central star, millions of years later, when it ignited H-burning in its core? (Indeed, "disk fragmentation" seem…

Has anyone seen the moon tonight in the south of England (maybe anywhere in the UK)? Does anyone know why it is so small, yet so bright? Is it because of the high air pressure?

I'd like to know what do you think about sending our nuclear waste to the Sun? Nuclear waste are vey radioactive and dangerous for people and for the enviroment, so, let's take them out of Earth, and let's send them to the Sun. And there, they will be disintegrated because of the high temperature of the sun. What do yo think about that? Y want to listen your opinion! Thank you!

i think that gravity can be faster than light... i think this because in a black hole situation that light cant escape gravity... so that means the gravity is faster than light... or i would think this because of the theoretical particle... the graviton... if gravity can overcome light... so would that mean that a graviton...or just gravity can be faster than light?!?

There is this video clip on Youtube saying that its possible to make a "time machine", which it claims allows us to travel into the 'past' (not only back in time). I have given the link below: I see several flaws with this video, so please check whether my arguments are correct: 1)The video has been posted before it was confirmed that particles can indeed travel faster than the speed of light, so obviously they didn't have that information at the time. Viewing the video in that context: The argument of the coffee bean doesn't make much sense to me. I mean; when the coffee bean (or whatever) approaches the speed of light, its weight would approach infinity…

Hi Might sound a silly question, but I've asked a couple of people who are unsure: I read that Mecury races around the sun at around 50km a second. I also know Mercury has very long days (time it takes to spin on its axis). Knowing this I thought what would happen if a rocket was launched off the surface of Mecury (theoretically) on the side of the planet of the direction of it's orbit around the sun (Side A) against that to a rocket lifting off on the side opposite to it's suns orbital direction (Side B). To me it comes to the conclusion that to exit Mercury on side A then the rocket, when free from Mecruys gravity, had to be travelling at over 50km/sec. Else Mer…

From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080404201105.htm "observations allow astronomers to look back in time over 10 billion years, producing images of galaxies in the Universe's infancy." Been struggling with this idea for a while now. With the help of the Hubble's deep field images, if we can see a galaxy as it was, say, five billion years ago, and since we know that galaxies aren't stationary, then is it possible that we are also seeing that same galaxy in a different location as it was seven billion years ago, and/or three billion years ago? If not, WHY not?

If matter was not attracted to itself and was in fact neutral to itself, but was repelled by space time would that not look like traditional "gravity". i.e. The apple is not attracted to the earth but pushed to the earth by space time as the earth is partially blocking space time from the bottom so the apple takes the path of least resistance and is pushed down? Wouldn't that explain why galaxies containing matter are accelerating away as they are being repelled by space time? Let's suppose space time repels matter. Let's suppose at the heart of every galaxy is a massive black hole pulling on matter. Wouldn't that explain why the galaxy has stayed in tact and has not …

I'm watching a documentary called, 'E=MC2'. with Hitoshi Murayama. In it he shows a pie chart displaying the mass deficit of the universe. What I don't understand is one piece of this pie chart shows how stars make up .5% of the universe, with no mention at all about the matter that makes up all of the planets. Here is the list on the pie chart: Stars 0.5% Atoms 4.4% Neutrinos 0.1% Dark Matter 24% Dark Energy 73% Now, if the mass of the planets were included in this chart, wouldn't this inclusion balance things out a bit better? Believe me, I'm no Einstein so I'm probably going to sound like an idiot, but I'm still curious. So, this is what I did i…

Stephen Hawking retracted his paradoxical view that information must be lost when matter falls into a black hole. In place of this idea, his revised mathematics (validated many times by numerous workers) shows that information persists but is confined to the surface or "event horizon" of the black hole. "Hawking radiation" may then be emitted by such a black hole and the information becomes available again. The singularity that is predicted by general relativity (GR) results from extrapolation of GR to the logical extreme. But, it is still logical. The logic cannot be tickered with without destroying the whole ediface. The trouble with singularities is only that one canno…

Oh boy, now you are talkin. I love this thread. why is the suns heat signature in reverse? How is it still holding onto the planets if its consuming itself? Why does the solar wind accelorate? Id like to know/ thanks for your responses

Can someone explain the four laws of black hole thermodynamics?

Just a thought. Could two universe's exsist in the same space? You know, over lap each other? And not even know it?

Hi Guys , I would like to hear from you about Rhawn Joseph.He writes his designation as Emeritus , Brain Research Laboratory , Northern California and there is literally no such thing on web.He has published many papers on PANSPERMIA in the Journal of cosmology and most have been ridiculed.Let me know anything on his credibility with some links if there .

Does anyone else get a sense that 14 billion years isn't enough time for the universe to have formed into what it is today? From the Big Bang we got a whole lot of gas: (From Wiki) The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae. With so many galaxies in the cosmos it seems like it would have taken TRillions and Trillions of years for enough gas to coalesce into the matter we see today. Added to this is the fact that the ever expanding universe would have been pullin…