Re: Was April 1st involved somewhere?
"Galaxies that are closer then stars?"
No, that is not suggested in any way anywhere within either this article of the paper it discusses. You've made that up yourself.
"'Winds' carrying material between galaxies? And what material were those winds made of?"
Everything. Primarily hydrogen and helium, but the whole point is that they were composed of all heavier elements as well.
"Up to half the mass of our galaxy having traveled here from other galaxies? Ejected by supernovas?"
"So half the mass of our Galaxy should have been ejected outwards as well?"
No. As the article clearly states, the flow is primarily from smaller to larger galaxies. Since the Milky Way is the largest galaxy within the distances in question, any outwards flow would have been significantly smaller, although no doubt there was still some transfer.
"Wheer are the trails of matter?"
Between the galaxies. Aside from the intergalactic medium being far too tenuous to actually observe such a flow directly, the article clearly notes (again, you did actually read it, right?) that the study was about the early universe which wouldn't be expected to be the same as today.
"How often do supernovas happen? Three have been seen from Earth in the last thousand years, so, not very often."
That's extremely often. We're not even dealing with geological time here, but astronomical. Something that has been observed happening many times locally in the tiny span of modern human history will happen a hell of a lot over the course of several billion years. Secondly, you've again missed the part about the study looking at the early years of the universe; early, low-metallicity stars had much shorter lifespans so the rate of supernovae was much higher at the relevant time. Finally on this point, your number is just plain wrong, probably by an order of magnitude or more. In the last thousand years there have been three supernovae recorded for which we've been able to identify the remains with modern observations. Far more events have been recorded that almost certainly were supernovae but that we can't now prove, and many others would have been missed entirely.
"This isn't scientific, it is just silly."
The paper in question is scientific, your nonsensical rambling that bears no relation to either the paper or the article you're commenting on is silly.