Banging the "Big": "Largest explosion" detected

[FS3]

On Wednesday, at 2:12 a.m. EDT, NASA’s Swift satellite detected an explosion from deep space (GRB 080319B) that was so powerful that its afterglow was briefly visible to the naked eye. Even more astonishing, the explosion itself took place "halfway across the visible universe" - so they say.

That´s indeed spectacular if you reconsider the math that would go along with this phenomenon:

As it was stated that GRB 080319B exploded at a distance from Earth of 7.5 billion light years you may conclude that the event happened 7.5 billion years ago. If someone believes in that "Creationism" of Big Bangs.

The age of the universe should be - according to the theory of the Big Bang - 15 billion years. So that star and that what is our Earth now should have been in the same location at that "time".

Therefore, for that very exploding star to be situated 7.5 billion years distant from Earth (when it exploded 7.5 billion years after the supposed Big Bang), it would have been neccessary to travel at the speed of light. It sounds even weirder if you reconsider that gravity would slow down velocities of that co(s)mical expanding bubble from the Big Bang, therefore GRB 080319B would have had to travel faster than the speed of light in order to be that far away from Earth when it exploded 7.5 billion years after the supposed Big Bang...


If you believe in that "Creationism" of Big Bangs.

Isn´t this funny? It all seems to fall back on that misconception from redshift=distance.

Anyhow, here are the amazing pics captured by "Pi of the Sky":



During night 2008.03.18/19 the "Pi of the Sky" apparatus located at Las Campanas Observatory was observing the Swift satellite field of view with 10s exposures from 5:49 UT. At 6:12 UT it observed exceptionally bright optical flash reaching 5.8 magnitudo. It was automatically detected by the flash recognition algorithm.

So when will they be able to "detect" some more reasonable logics in Astrophysics? Hopefully, soon...

FS3

[davesmith_au]

FS3 you beat me to it!! Ah well, I'll still post what I intended...

Brightest Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) ever seen...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... t_grb.html

First comes the sickeningly mechanical explanation:

The explosion was a gamma ray burst. Most gamma ray bursts occur when massive stars run out of nuclear fuel. Their cores collapse to form black holes or neutron stars, releasing an intense burst of high-energy gamma rays and ejecting particle jets that rip through space at nearly the speed of light like turbocharged cosmic blowtorches. When the jets plow into surrounding interstellar clouds, they heat the gas, often generating bright afterglows. Gamma ray bursts are the most luminous explosions in the universe since the big bang.

Then they use its redshift to deduce it's 7.5 billion light years away...

Later that evening, the Very Large Telescope in Chile and the Hobby-Eberly Telescope in Texas measured the burst's redshift at 0.94. A redshift is a measure of the distance to an object. A redshift of 0.94 translates into a distance of 7.5 billion light years, meaning the explosion took place 7.5 billion years ago, a time when the universe was less than half its current age and Earth had yet to form. This is more than halfway across the visible universe.

The extremely luminous afterglow of GRB 080319B was imaged by Swift's X-ray Telescope (left) and Optical/Ultraviolet Telescope (right). This was by far the brightest gamma-ray burst afterglow ever seen. Credit: NASA/Swift/Stefan Immler, et al.

Then there's the inverted color shot I made:

Somehow I can't help but think I might be 'looking down the barrel' of one almighty plasma discharge...

What say others here?

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[Solar]

Stellar fissioning to relieve electrical stress? If so then perhaps there would be a binary companion to some star in that direction.

[davesmith_au]

Stellar fissioning to relieve electrical stress? If so then perhaps there would be a binary companion to some star in that direction.

Funny you should mention binary - if you look closely at the very center of the left-hand pic above (especially the inverted color pic), it almost looks like two circles overlapping so to speak... I had thought maybe there was a bipolar thing happening, but it could also be binary in nature... curioser and curioser...

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[MGmirkin]

Somehow I can't help but think I might be 'looking down the barrel' of one almighty plasma discharge...

What say others here?

Cheers, Dave Smith.

So, the inevitable comparison one might make would be with a shot "down the barrel of said almighty plasma gun..."



So, there you have it. Yea, nay, maybe?

~Michael Gmirkin

[moses]

This 'explosion' could have originated in the Milky Way. Note that the
last big GRB was followed by the massive Indian Ocean earthquake.
Mo

[Komorikid]

If this is a precursor to another geo event we won't have long to wait.
Is there any current theory on how far distant the stars actually are since Red Shift isn't a product of distance?

[FS3]

In the light of the ongoing attempts to "create an artificial Black Hole" - this time at CERN in Europe - I would like to recall this article from 1999 Contemplating a Black Hole At Brookhaven Labs:

...Apparently the RHIC doomsday scenario got legs in late summer when Fred Moody alleged in an ABCNEWS.com article that none other than Stephen Hawking supported the idea that RHIC could be "dangerous." Hawking has since been quoted as saying, "I never said that. Long Island is quite safe." John Marburger, director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, had a pretty succinct and direct response to the flap:

"The September 14 edition of ABCNEWS.com includes an article by Fred Moody describing the views of David Melville, ‘an eccentric physicist and thinker,’ that suggests that collisions at Brookhaven Lab’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider can create a black hole that could ‘eat up the earth.’ The origin of the black hole would be the quark-gluon plasma, whose creation, under laboratory conditions, is a primary objective of RHIC experiments. Moody quotes Melville as saying, ‘It has been theorized by Stephen Hawking that from this quark-gluon plasma other forms of matter are also produced, the most dangerous being a black hole.’

"The reference to Stephen Hawking, a prominent theoretical physicist, appears to give credence to the notion that RHIC experiments might be dangerous. In fact, the ideas of Melville, as represented by Moody, are entirely incorrect. RHIC will not recreate the Big Bang, which encompassed all the matter and energy in the universe, but rather an exceedingly small quantity of matter–roughly equivalent to one atom of material–in the quark-gluon plasma state.

"Black holes require enormous concentrations of gravitational force, which can only come from enormous concentrations of matter. RHIC experiments involve essentially zero amounts of matter and will produce zero disturbance of the normal gravitational field of the earth.

"There is simply not enough matter or energy in the RHIC collisions to create a black hole. This conclusion does not require difficult or obscure calculations and has not been questioned by any physicist in a relevant field who has considered the matter."...

So if next time someone´s gonna ask you: Could a "Big Bang Machine destroy Earth", you might gently laugh at him and tell him something about...

...yes, something what the Electric Universe is TEACHING about this virtual "nothings"...



FS3

[FS3]

This maybe could be something to ponder further...

This 'explosion' could have originated in the Milky Way. Note that the
last big GRB was followed by the massive Indian Ocean earthquake.
Mo

Regarding the latest "X-Ray-finding" of 2008D, called Supernova in real time, for the first time, the event that was caught on Jan.9th, 2008 we have to remember as well that there actually was a powerful earthquake in Tibet on that very day:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageC ... 2020080109

And plus - keep in mind what happened in China lately...

rangrover777 already reported the event here, both in the EU as in the Plantery Section of the forum - although without any further comment.

FS3

[Steve Smith]

Hannes Alfvén wrote that he considered the "exploding double layer" as "a new form of celestial object".

"Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that x-ray and gamma ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers. In solar flares, DL's with voltages of 10^9 V or even more may occur, and in galactic phenomena, we may have voltages that are several orders of magnitude larger. Examples are given of possible galactic DL voltage differences of 10^12 V. This means that by a straightforward extrapolation of what we know from our cosmic neighborhood, we can derive acceleration mechanisms which brings us up in the energy region of cosmic radiation."

Cosmic Ray Guns

[junglelord]

Double Layers are my third archetype of universal forms and structures. They always coincide with the spiral vortex (birkeland currents for example) and also branching networks.

DL are an implicit and explicit expression of the nonmaterial world into material via tensegrity (since by nature all DL are push pull systems) and structure and function always being connected from the non material to the material.

[nick c]

Komorikid asked:
Is there any current theory on how far distant the stars actually are since Red Shift isn't a product of distance?

Astronomers can measure stellar distances by the parallax effect:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm
This method is limited to stars that are in our 'neighborhood' of the Milky Way.
For more distant stars estimates of distance can be made by use of the inverse square law and the [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude]absolute magnitude[/url2].
...for instance if we look at a star, the astronomer asks the question, how far away would the Sun have to be in order to look that dim? Obviously the astronomer has to make some assumptions concerning the star's absolute magnitude, based on the star's position on the H-R diagram.
I don't know that the red shift is to be totally discarded as a distance measuring tool, in light of the work of Halton Arp, it certainly needs to be reevaluated as he shows that the red shift is intrinsic and quantized. Galactic distances can also be estimated using the inverse square/absolute magnitude method by looking at member stars of known types such as Cepheid Variables, supernova, etc:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/galaxy/s7.htm
More distant galaxies can be estimated using the [url2=http://www.astronomynotes.com/galaxy/s7.htm]standard candle[/url2] method.
Quasars are thought to be extremely bright objects at enormous distances because of their high red shift, however, Arp has shown that they are more likely to be dimmer objects close by. Certainly, this is going to change the 'map' of our galactic neighborhood.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0auycyew
Nick