Lithium In Novae Discovered

[Ravenstar]

http://www.iflscience.com/space/embargo-29-july-11am-bst-first-ever-detection-lithium-nova-could-solve-cosmic-conundrum

[duderonomy]

This Universe could use some lithium, but that's just me.  It's a crazy place.

[sdelsolray]

Little by little more information is gathered.

 

Kudos to the astronomers who bird-dogged this question using the scientific method.

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for this, Ravenstar. 

 

I'm checking to see if this discovery has any impact on what's known as the Lithium problem.

 

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-big-conditions-lithium-problem.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2015/07/29/scientists-solve-the-mystery-of-lithium-in-the-milky-way/

 

If this pans out, then another prediction of Inflationary Cosmological theory will have been confirmed.

 

And, the cool thing is that even the simplest models of Inflation give us an infinitely-large, Level 1 multiverse.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA.

[disillusioned]

I'm waiting for pantheory to show up and explain how this, too, confirms his ideas.

[pantheory]

I'm waiting for pantheory to show up and explain how this, too, confirms his ideas.

---------------------------------------

quote from link directly below:

 

Nova:  There are many reasons why a star might increase in brightness in a sudden and explosive-like manner; the collision of two stars, core changes, unstable pulsations. However, novae are often recurrent, meaning that after 50 to 100 years the nova will go off again. This means that whatever causes the brightness changes must be cyclic (i.e. it doesn't destroy the star).

 

 

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec17.html

 

Novae (singular nova) are believed to be explosions on the surface of white dwarf stars that result in their shedding of the outer surface area of these dwarf stars. These are not supernova explosions where the entire star explodes. Nova often can reoccur in the same star roughly every 50-100 years. These surface explosions are not part of the fusion cycle of element creation which occurs in main-sequence stars (younger stars) and supernovae.

 

Because Lithium was found in the outer ejected material of a nova may not help the lithium problem. The lithium problem is many faceted and is based upon the amount of lithium observed within stellar spectra, as it greatly differs from quantities of Lithium predicted by the  Big Bang model. 

 

When we count up the lithium atoms held in stars, there is only one-third as much of the lithium-7 isotope as there should be. Another isotope, lithium-6, is overabundant: there may be as much as 1000 times too much of it  (based upon Big Bang predictions of nucleosynthesis).

 

parenthesis added

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246-700-13-more-things-the-lithium-problem/

[mymistake]

How does any of that suggest that the matter in our universe is shrinking at an ever increasing rate?  I thought that is what the alternative theory is.  All the red shifts are caused by matter shrinking at ever-increasing "warp" speed.

[disillusioned]

 

I'm waiting for pantheory to show up and explain how this, too, confirms his ideas.

---------------------------------------

quote from link directly below:

 

Nova:  There are many reasons why a star might increase in brightness in a sudden and explosive-like manner; the collision of two stars, core changes, unstable pulsations. However, novae are often recurrent, meaning that after 50 to 100 years the nova will go off again. This means that whatever causes the brightness changes must be cyclic (i.e. it doesn't destroy the star).

 

 

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec17.html

 

Novae (singular nova) are believed to be explosions on the surface of white dwarf stars that result in their shedding of the outer surface area of these dwarf stars. These are not supernova explosions where the entire star explodes. Nova reoccur in the same star roughly every 50-100 years. These surface explosions are not part of the fusion cycle of element creation which occurs in main-sequence stars (younger stars) and supernovae.

 

Because Lithium was found in the outer ejected material of a nova may not help the lithium problem. The lithium problem is many faceted and based upon the amount of lithium observed within stellar spectra.

 

When we count up the lithium atoms held in stars, there is only one-third as much of the lithium-7 isotope as there should be. Another isotope, lithium-6, is overabundant: there may be as much as 1000 times too much of it  (based upon Big Bang predictions of nucleosynthesis).

 

parenthesis added

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246-700-13-more-things-the-lithium-problem/

 

 

...and there it is. Who could have predicted this?

[bornagainathiest]

Here's what amuses me, Disillusioned.

 

When we read something new about the Emdrive, Pantheory writes, "You can't argue with success."

 

When we read about another prediction that supports Inflationary cosmology being confirmed with actual observations - somehow that's not a success.

 

Go figure!

 

 

BAA.

 

 

[disillusioned]

Here's what amuses me, Disillusioned.

 

When we read something new about the Emdrive, Pantheory writes, "You can't argue with success."

 

When we read about another prediction that supports Inflationary cosmology being confirmed with actual observations - somehow that's not a success.

 

Go figure!

 

 

BAA.

 

Some people simply cannot be reasoned with. They've got their goggles on, and they just can't imagine taking them off. That's all there is to it, my friend.

[pantheory]

How does any of that suggest that the matter in our universe is shrinking at an ever increasing rate?  I thought that is what the alternative theory is.  All the red shifts are caused by matter shrinking at ever-increasing "warp" speed.

 

It doesn't. The Lithium problem is uniquely a Big Bang problem related to calculated vs. observed quantities of Lithium, unrelated to any other cosmological model, and certainly unrelated to the cause of cosmic redshifts and the possibility of matter shrinking at a very, very slow but constant rate.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Here's what amuses me, Disillusioned.

 

When we read something new about the Emdrive, Pantheory writes, "You can't argue with success."

 

When we read about another prediction that supports Inflationary cosmology being confirmed with actual observations - somehow that's not a success.

 

Go figure!

 

 

BAA.

 

Some people simply cannot be reasoned with. They've got their goggles on, and they just can't imagine taking them off. That's all there is to it, my friend.

 

 

Ah...you're one step ahead of me, D.

 

I was going to reply that Pantheory and Thumbelina are peas in a pod, but you got there first.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

 

How does any of that suggest that the matter in our universe is shrinking at an ever increasing rate?  I thought that is what the alternative theory is.  All the red shifts are caused by matter shrinking at ever-increasing "warp" speed.

 

It doesn't. The Lithium problem is uniquely a Big Bang problem related to calculated vs. observed quantities of Lithium, unrelated to any other cosmological model, and certainly unrelated to the cause of cosmic redshifts and matter shrinking at a very, very slow but constant rate.

 

 

Matter shrinking slowly wouldn't work.  That wouldn't cause the redshifts we see.

[pantheory]

mymistake:  Matter shrinking slowly wouldn't work.  That wouldn't cause the redshifts we see.

 

Here is a quote from one of my scientific papers that explains it. See Section 3., second paragraph. "Shrinking" 1/1000 part every 8 million years, is a very slow size-reduction rate. This is calculated based upon observed cosmic redshifts.

 

It is a scale-changing theory........rather than space expanding, matter very slowly gets smaller over time. Matter would decrease in size about 1/1000 part every 8 million years.........

 

 

The Lithium problem is characterized as being minor compared to some of the other BB problems listed below, according to that paper. Let's try to stay on topic.

 

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

How does any of that suggest that the matter in our universe is shrinking at an ever increasing rate?  I thought that is what the alternative theory is.  All the red shifts are caused by matter shrinking at ever-increasing "warp" speed.

 

It doesn't. The Lithium problem is uniquely a Big Bang problem related to calculated vs. observed quantities of Lithium, unrelated to any other cosmological model, and certainly unrelated to the cause of cosmic redshifts and matter shrinking at a very, very slow but constant rate.

 

 

Matter shrinking slowly wouldn't work.  That wouldn't cause the redshifts we see.

 

 

MM,

 

Before you consider responding further, here's a thought you might like to consider.

.

.

.

Pantheory is the Thumbelina of the Science forum.  

.

.

.

'nuff said?

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[RogueScholar]

Matter getting "smaller?" Care to describe the spectroscopic implications of "shrinking" an atomic orbital? This is certainly something that would be easy to predict and test given the fact that we can observe the spectra of gas clouds that are millions of "years" away from us.

[pantheory]

Matter getting "smaller?" Care to describe the spectroscopic implications of "shrinking" an atomic orbital? This is certainly something that would be easy to predict and test given the fact that we can observe the spectra of gas clouds that are millions of "years" away from us.

 

There have been a great many discussions of shrinking matter since the idea of an expanding universe was first proposed at the end of the 1920's. The following is a list of few related online discussions in the present day including some of my own discussions, comments, and related replies by others.

 

http://shrinkingmattertheory.blogspot.com/

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/expanding-universe-vs-shrinking-matter.519304/

http://www.thescienceforum.com/astronomy-cosmology/25741-us-shrinking-space-expanding.html

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58280-alternative-to-big-bang-model/page-4

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/universe_expanding_or_are_we_shrinking-118673

 

My own theory of the diminution of matter is about 380 pages long also concerning most of modern physics, which can be found on any search engine as the Pan Theory.

 

Your questions vary from the thread topic of "Lithium observed in nova........" You can either PM me, or start another thread on a related topic if you wish answers to your questions. By reading the above links first I expect your questions will either change or go away.

[bornagainathiest]

[RogueScholar]

My question is actually relevant because discovering elements far away from us often involves spectroscopy. Therefore the claim that matter is shrinking would have profound implications when it comes to spectroscopy. Please answer my question.

[pantheory]

My question is actually relevant because discovering elements far away from us often involves spectroscopy. Therefore the claim that matter is shrinking would have profound implications when it comes to spectroscopy. Please answer my question.

 

Matter shrinking is based upon bigger atoms and molecules in the past. Larger atoms would produce longer wavelengths, which from our perspective would appear to be redshifted compared to what we see locally.

 

Distances and measurements will always look and measure the same in all time frames since our yard sticks, measuring devices, wavelengths, etc. are also shrinking at the same rate as the matter we may be trying to measure, so such measurement would not be possible. Shrinking 1/1000 part every 7-8 million years is also not a very fast rate of diminution. 

 

Now, let's try to stay on topic. My comments on diminution go back to a question to me, posting #7, by mymistake which led the conversation off topic. Again, if you wish to pursue this line of questioning further please PM me.

[RogueScholar]

So, you mean to tell me that constants such as h and e must be changing? No evidence of this making it into good peer reviewed papers. Care to try again?

[SerenelyBlue]

Why don't they ban pantheory?

[RogueScholar]

I'm really not too keen on banning folks with ideas that are not well founded or well outside what is accepted unless said people take advantage of vulnerable folks going through deconversion or folks who have a tenuous grasp on reality. I'll currently leave that debate alone however. There is merit in confronting ideas and trying to keep the marketplace on a level playing field however. Of course, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm overwhelmingly ignorant in most areas.

[pantheory]

Yes, everything would remain relatively the same. See related papers below and review the above links if you have not already done so since these links explain many versions of this theory in detail.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878v4

 

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463

 

Back to the topic at hand.

[SerenelyBlue]

I've seen him destroy so many threads. Surely that is grounds for banning.