So the supernova scattered its fragment and we ( earth ) are fragment of the supernova , so what else is new. In my way is that the solid mass as we were prior the supernova is our parent
Seriously, you have a Masters in Chemistry? Somehow I find it hard to believe given you seem to have no grasp of science and have a significant amount of ignorance on some fairly basic concepts. People sufficiently educated in a science subject shouldn't be making the laughable statements you have been. Which leads me to the conclusion either you don't have said degree or it was wasted on you.You can tell this ignorant snub I have a Master in chemistry , and hes post on element in the sun are irrelevant for discussion about questioning the age of the earth and of the sun, . Perhaps he should read about how heavy element are formed and to get to the atomic weight like Bismuth , probably is necessary to go through two supernova . Our sun so far have not collapsed to form Iron. What probably your friend . Never mind, Let him and you have a merry Christmas
No, but your response is a common hyperbole done by people who don't have a sound basis for their position. You have been told you're mistaken not because you're bucking the status quo but because you are demonstrably wrong in your assertions. Let's consider what you said next...If some does not agree and not jumps on the bandwagon he is wrong ? Without a good explanation , they just dump it, is that science
The fact the majority of the Sun is light elements doesn't mean it doesn't contain heavy elements. In fact every element has been detected in the Sun via spectral lines. As a chemist you should know what they are, seeing as the discovery of Helium was done by noting new lines in the Sun's emissions which implied an element never detected on Earth before. Only once spurred by this realisation was Helium discovered. Helium, derived from Helios, meaning Sun.When the so called expert can not explain how did we get the heavy element on the earth comparing with the sun . is that an expert ? That is shame .
Now this is just thick. The Sun is obviously a very different entity to the Earth, in that it is undergoing constant nuclear fusion. As such it would be ridiculous, ie deserving of ridicule, for someone to expect the internal structures of the Sun and Earth to be the same.The the earth have an iron core and the sun does not . So the question is how can the sun and earth have the same age .ARE THIS QUESTIONS IN PSEUDOSCIENCE
If you knew something about the physics of how the Sun and Earth form you'd know that the collapsing cloud of dust does not collapse in such a way to give uniform densities of all elements. Heavier elements don't collapse in the same manner as lighter ones.Getting to the iron . The concentration you have in the sun is zilch comparing to the earth per volume. . Is it not as the fusion continue in the sun the element will fuse into larger atomic weight and iron will be the largest atomic weight and the sun collapse , you can say well the volume decreases so , you 0.014 of iron in the sun, is far of frim the percent of iron on the earth been 4.0%. This is one of my premises that the earth have to be older then the sun. If any thing to say based on heavy elements earth could be twice as old as the sun.The sun is relatively young it just a fuel ball and that fuel have to be fused to be converted.
Seriously, you have a Masters in Chemistry? Somehow I find it hard to believe given you seem to have no grasp of science and have a significant amount of ignorance on some fairly basic concepts. People sufficiently educated in a science subject shouldn't be making the laughable statements you have been. Which leads me to the conclusion either you don't have said degree or it was wasted on you.
No, but your response is a common hyperbole done by people who don't have a sound basis for their position. You have been told you're mistaken not because you're bucking the status quo but because you are demonstrably wrong in your assertions. Let's consider what you said next...
The fact the majority of the Sun is light elements doesn't mean it doesn't contain heavy elements. In fact every element has been detected in the Sun via spectral lines. As a chemist you should know what they are, seeing as the discovery of Helium was done by noting new lines in the Sun's emissions which implied an element never detected on Earth before. Only once spurred by this realisation was Helium discovered. Helium, derived from Helios, meaning Sun.
I learnt that in school.
Now this is just thick. The Sun is obviously a very different entity to the Earth, in that it is undergoing constant nuclear fusion. As such it would be ridiculous, ie deserving of ridicule, for someone to expect the internal structures of the Sun and Earth to be the same.
As for the ages of the Sun and Earth have you bothered to look up any astrophysics? Wikipedia covers it quite well, ie the Earth formed from the accretion disk of the Sun, which collapsed and began fusing somewhat before (few hundred million years) the Earth collapsed enough to be considered a planet. And that's not even considering the impact event which formed the Moon.
Again, this is stuff taught in schools or easily available information to anyone with an iota of curiosity in their mind. You have the danger mix of blind faith, complete ignorance and the delusion that because you have a qualification in something vaguely linked to the subject matter then you're in the right. It's funny how the religious hacks will ignore the many scientific qualifications of the scientists who explain why they are wrong but as soon as one of you have a qualification of your own then it is lauded over. Rank hypocrisy.
If you knew something about the physics of how the Sun and Earth form you'd know that the collapsing cloud of dust does not collapse in such a way to give uniform densities of all elements. Heavier elements don't collapse in the same manner as lighter ones.
Your arguments are so poor someone with a high school knowledge of science can demolish them. Did you get your Chemistry Masters from the same school Kent Hovind got his PhD from?
AlphaNumeric;3030485 As for the ages of the Sun and Earth have you bothered to look up any astrophysics? Wikipedia covers it quite well said:at a velocity of up to 30,000 km/s (10% of the speed of light), driving a shock wave[3] into the surrounding interstellar medium. This shock wave sweeps up an expanding shell of gas and dust called a supernova remnant. What ever the word dust means ( particle size or large lumps , We don't know the sizes ). The earth is smaller then the sun, so it will taka a larger amount of time to accreate a mass with hydrogen to initiate a star
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
which collapsed and began fusing somewhat before (few hundred million years) the Earth collapsed enough to be considered a planet. And that's not even considering the impact event which formed the Moon.
Physicist : Think, think. the sun is larger the the earth .... It will take more time .
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Again, this is stuff taught in schools or easily available information to anyone with an iota of curiosity in their mind. You have the danger mix of blind faith, complete ignorance and the delusion that because you have a qualification in something vaguely linked to the subject matter then you're in the right. It's funny how the religious hacks will ignore the many scientific qualifications of the scientists who explain why they are wrong but as soon as one of you have a qualification of your own then it is lauded over. Rank hypocrisy.
More insulting crap.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If you knew something about the physics of how the Sun and Earth form you'd know that the collapsing cloud of dust does not collapse in such a way to give uniform densities of all elements. Heavier elements don't collapse in the same manner as lighter ones.
I believe in gravity. the larger the mass the larger is the gravity , so ? Beside I would like you explain your self what do you mean collapse in this content ,( You are dangerous )
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Your arguments are so poor someone with a high school knowledge of science can demolish them. Did you get your Chemistry Masters from the same school Kent Hovind got his PhD from?
You have spent more energy in criticizing ant attempting to humiliate me then providing your knowledge, but what can be expected , Physicist think they know about chemistry , my experience in the past have told me otherwise and this is a verification of my experience.
Then it should have, at some point, come to your attention that spectral lines are used to detect elements (and compounds in the case of planets) within the atmosphere of stellar objects, including the Sun. Thus you should be aware the Sun includes the heavy elements.This is worthless to discuss : I have worked in chemical analysis using different wavelength spectrophotometer, for over 10 tears I ha
Firstly Walter and I are not 'friends', I consider him a hack. Secondly I quoted what I was replying to, You complained the Sun doesn't have an iron core but te Earth does, as if that is evidence for your position. As has already been pointed out to you, the Sun contains vast amounts of iron, the fact it isn't all at the centre making a core of iron, akin to the Earth, is because the Sun is a fundamentally different object. Complaining the Sun doesn't have a particular structure the Earth does is, as I said, thick. And thirdly I'm not 'Mr', I'm 'Dr'. I generally forgo such formality though....Look Mr , I don't know were you got that , that I implied that the sun and earth are equal ( perhaps your friend Wagner )
So you haven't bothered to look up the actual astrophysics, you're going to assume it takes more time because it is bigger. What about the fact in a disk the gravity is attracting towards the centre, where the Sun is forming, so more material flows towards the centre? As more material flows towards the middle, passing the orbital radius of the Earth, the more the gravitational attraction on material favours the centre (ie the Sun's future position) over the Earth (a generalised gravitational shell theorem result). Thus it is self re-enforcing. In addition the Sun is mostly made up of lighter elements, which also form the bulk of the collapsing cloud, not all of which is needed for fusion to start. Plus there's an issue with small planet formation when you get a large planet forming too. The reason the asteroid field exists, rather than a small planet, is due to Jupiter's influence preventing it (it also protected us from numerous cometary bombardments!). As some material began to clump into Jupiter it would have slowed the collapse of other planetary clumps, in some cases destroying them all together.Physicist : Think, think. the sun is larger the the earth .... It will take more time .
I've given some overview and if you are a competent chemist then you should have it within your intellectual capacity to know how to find information on the internet. Is googling for certain words I use too much for you to must? Or despite that 10+ years doing spectral chemistry you need to be spoon fed everything?You have spent more energy in criticizing ant attempting to humiliate me then providing your knowledge, but what can be expected ,
Where did I say I knew about chemistry? This is physics, the collapse of a star. Chemistry involves chemicals, we're talking about nuclear processes driven by gravitational collapse. So it's you, a supposed chemist, telling physicists how physics works. Nice bit of ironic hypocrisy there by you.Physicist think they know about chemistry , my experience in the past have told me otherwise and this is a verification of my experience.
I don't agree with that statement , because it does not make sense to me
It's actually kind of refreshing and nice to see that science doesn't know everything. Science has been anti-God for a long long time. And look where they got stuck --> where did the big bang come from? Where did the energy content of the big bang come from? I think it's hilarious that in Genesis, God claims responsibility for creating the universe, "God said, Let there be Light!!!"The beginning of time and space as we know it was the big bang but that doesn't mean nothing existed before. We could be a universe in a much larger construct. Therefore the universe wouldn't need a creator.
Lincoln was born in a cabin he built himself.Or the universe could have created itself,...
Really? Of course the laws of the universe wouldn't contradict the creation of the very same universe....such consistent models exist within general relativity.
So you disagree because you don't understand. This is an argument from incredulity, and is your standard reaction to just about everything.
Again, I'm surprised by the lack of education displayed in your posts, especially considering that you claim a degree in a scientific discipline.
1) If the argument is not convincing am I supposed to agree ? ( beside you should write the whole sentence of what I dis agree ) My reaction is depending of the topic.
2) go on keep pushing me down that makes you more elevated . I cannot helped I have the degree , and I made a good living and retired based on my degree.
I am aware that iron have different Isotopes , by the way you missed Fe 60 which have a half life of 2.6 million years , But I don't see how pertinent is this for this particular argument
So the supernova scattered its fragment and we ( earth ) are fragment of the supernova , so what else is new. In my way is that the solid mass as we were prior the supernova is our parent . Now gas have spread and condensation had to take place because the cold space 4. K definitively it would take longer to a cloud of gas to condensate. and the mass of the condensate increase and gravitation increase with mass then puff the fusion starts and here we are
Pall, why the insults I believe I remember my chemistry. But I can see how you are burring yourself , so you use insults because I question your hand waving . You know the more you talk the more I get convinced that my position becomes more solid
Firstly science doesn't claim to know everything. You have this warped ignorant view of it, something which you don't understand, where you just assume things are as you guess they are. You're the guy who said science is running out of things to experiment, which just shows how clueless you are. Secondly science isn't 'anti-god'. If you could provide sound evidence for a god then science would expand to include it. Until then god has no more place in science than Bigfoot.It's actually kind of refreshing and nice to see that science doesn't know everything. Science has been anti-God for a long long time.
And Pastafarians think it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. At least science is honest enough to say "Don't know", religion doesn't know but lies and says it does.And look where they got stuck --> where did the big bang come from? Where did the energy content of the big bang come from? I think it's hilarious that in Genesis, God claims responsibility for creating the universe, "God said, Let there be Light!!!"
There isn't the same as a self creating universe.Really? Of course the laws of the universe wouldn't contradict the creation of the very same universe.
You haven't even looked at the argument, as you haven't gone and read any of the science. Complaining we don't spoon fed you when you're too lazy to feed yourself is idiotic.1) If the argument is not convincing am I supposed to agree ? ( beside you should write the whole sentence of what I dis agree ) My reaction is depending of the topic.
I have a degree, Masters, PhD, published papers and a research job and unlike yourself my education (mathematical physics) directly pertains to such things as quantum mechanics and gravity, the two phenomena involved in stellar evolution.I even took a graduate course in 'Structure and Evolution of Stars'! Can we all therefore conclude my education trumps yours in regards to this topic and therefore anything I say, be it based on evidence or my gut feelings trumps your gut feelings?2) go on keep pushing me down that makes you more elevated . I cannot helped I have the degree , and I made a good living and retired based on my degree.
Balerion is just trying to shake you out of your Creationist coma, as are spidergoat, AlexG, Alpha, rpenner, Origin, brucep, JamesR, prometheus, and the list goes on and on. There are fine folks here who speak with one clear voice on basic ideas like logical fallacy, no matter how diverse they are, and how many ways they may see the world through the lens of their own experience. Don't mistake the doctor slapping the baby as an insult. They are just asking you to wake up and look at what you're saying. Above, you're simply refusing to address the fusion that occurs later, not now, not when the star is young, but at supernova. Of course you need to examine the proposition that there were supernovas that occurred before there was the dust of heavy elements anywhere in the universe. Go there, they are telling you as they slap you awake, and look at the ways heavy elements are born.I suppose you are asking about nuclear fusion. calling it synthesis were Proton = neutron ---> deuterium + Proton --> Helium3 + gamma
Heliun3 + deuterium --> Helium4 + Proton, Helium3 + Helium3--> Be7 + gamma, Be7 + electron -->Li7 + Hydrogen --> 2He4 and energy, Is that what that stocked up fellow means of building up elements I can go on , were in the sun will build up elements in weight then it stops at the element of Iron.
Again our sun have not come to that stage, otherwise we would not be here. But our earth have heavier elements then iron . This means that the elements that we have must be from a second or third generation of suns or what ever you want to call them. T
Tell me does that qualify me so an stuck up and blabbermouth ( beluron ) can talk to me , My mother give me my credential does that makes you guys happy.
Your English grammar and spelling is atrocious for someone who claims a master's degree in Chemistry.
'Pal'; not 'Pall'
'burying'; not 'burring'
I posed no insults, nor did I attempt to insult. I was simply presenting facts. No hand-waving whatsoever.
I deliberately omitted Fe-60. I also deliberately omitted Fe-49, t-1/2 = .08s; Fe-52, t-1/2 = 0.9m/8.28h; Fe-53, t-1/2 = 2.53m/8.53/m; Fe-55, t-1/2 = 2.7a; Fe-59, t-1/2 = 44.6d (common radioactive iron as a tracer); Fe-61, t-1/2 = 6.0m; Fe-62, t-1/2 = 68s.
I omitted them because they are radioactive with half-lives that are significantly shorter than the lifetime of the sun and earth since those solar-system bodies were formed, and hence they no longer are present on earth, in meteors/meteorties, etc. because they have radioactively decayed away to non-Iron elements (which is also why Technetium is also not naturally present on Earth since it is radioactive with a relatively short half-life, which as a chemist you would know was 'missing' from the periodic table of elements when it was developed, and had to be technically made by mankind (hence the name Technetium), filling in that gap.
Also, I believe that 'AlphaNumeric' is not pleased that you lumped us together. He does consider me a hack. But he can't quite figure out how I know so much more than he in so many areas of science, and so much nuclear physics (as per the above) for someone he considers a 'hack'. It has to do, however, with the fact that I was working in physics with radioactive materials long before he was born, and studying nucleosynthesis and astrophysics in my postgraduate work when he was still in diapers.
AlphaNumeric; You haven't even looked at the argument said:Sr. come down from your clouds and talk science , your resume does not impress me , Show me experimental work and experience that is more meaningful, Thank you for your generosity
But he can't quite figure out how I know so much more than he in so many areas of science, [//quote]How did you reach the conclusion I cannot figure it out? Considering I'm not all knowing its clear that many people, including many hacks, will know more about certain subjects than I. Someone with an A Level (ages 17-18 for those not in the UK) in biology will know more than me in biology. Someone who can play Grade 1 Piano knows more about musical theory than me. Someone who can count to 10 in Japanese knows more Japanese than me.
Your area of, and I use this word in a very vague way, 'expertise' is not completely aligned with my preferred areas so you knowing more than me in some areas of science does not say anything about you knowledge or mine beyond that misalignment.
Someone can be well educated and still be a hack but you're not even well educated (in the grand scheme of things). You didn't major in nuclear physics, you haven't a postgraduate qualification in it, your 'research' involved being a lab monkey who looked at slides through a microscope, you have no published research in peer reviewed journals, you do not engage in research and your mathematical knowledge is extremely poor, making you incapable of doing such research even if you wanted.and so much nuclear physics (as per the above) for someone he considers a 'hack'.
To elaborate on that, nuclear physics research involves large experiments and/or a fair amount of complicated mathematical physics. You cannot do the latter and you don't have access to the former. So what nuclear physics capabilities you have which I do not do not extend to deep theory but rather the practical experience you've gathered over the years by doing radiology related work and the like. You don't have the capabilities to compute such things as decay widths of particles or nucleon arrangements within nuclei, such things would require mathematical capabilities you do not possess. Likewise with all the black hole stuff you used to yammer on about. You are incapable of doing any of the necessary theory so instead you arm wave. My knowledge in terms of GR and QFT put me in a better position to do nuclear physics research than you.
Age does not imply competency. Remember your 50/50 thing on The Daily Show? Does your age make what you said right? Of course not. Being older only implies something if you spent those years doing something constructive. Your 'radioactive ceramic tiles', being a lab monkey for actual physicists and the other odd jobs you've done haven't provided you with anything beyond practical experience of phenomena which you have no ability to describe.It has to do, however, with the fact that I was working in physics with radioactive materials long before he was born, and studying nucleosynthesis and astrophysics in my postgraduate work when he was still in diapers.
Hacks often like to point out how long they've been working on something (it's one of the things on the crackpot index). Sylwester has been proclaiming things about his 'everlasting theory' longer than I've been alive and yet I've managed to accomplish more in mathematical physics than he. And I don't doubt that if I haven't done likewise compared to you yet then I will in my life.
Thanks for illustrating my point. You have been lauding your Masters in Chemistry over people but when someone trumps you suddenly resumes are not worth considering. Hypocrite.Sr. come down from your clouds and talk science , your resume does not impress me
I see you're still too lazy to bother to look up anything to do with the structure and evolution of stars. And its funny how you demand experimental work and experience from me yet you dismiss things we tell you based on your gut despite you having no experimental evidence and no experience. Hypocrite.Show me experimental work and experience that is more meaningful, Thank you for your generosity
Sr. come down from your clouds and talk science , your resume does not impress me , Show me experimental work and experience that is more meaningful, Thank you for your generosity
arauca said:Sr. come down from your clouds and talk science , your resume does not impress me
Planetary accretion from the remnants of supernovae explains the presence of heavy elements on Earth. The Sun formed out of the remnants of the Big Bang itself (mostly H and He) and so its chemical composition is not the same. Obviously the nebulae are not heterogeneous, nor are they uniform across all signatures.
I'm very glad to hear that.Firstly science doesn't claim to know everything. You have this warped ignorant view of it, something which you don't understand, where you just assume things are as you guess they are. You're the guy who said science is running out of things to experiment, which just shows how clueless you are. Secondly science isn't 'anti-god'. If you could provide sound evidence for a god then science would expand to include it.
Religion wouldn't be fullfilling its purpose if it didn't offer hope and some sense of certainty in a universe that is very uncertain. It would completely defeat the purpose of religion to sit around and wait for thousands of years until verfiable facts were available. There is a whole other side to living in this world that science does not/cannot appreaciate.And Pastafarians think it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. At least science is honest enough to say "Don't know", religion doesn't know but lies and says it does.
I googled "Self creating universe" and came up with something very interesting from wiki,There isn't the same as a self creating universe.You haven't even looked at the argument, as you haven't gone and read any of the science. Complaining we don't spoon fed you when you're too lazy to feed yourself is idiotic.
There's a lot to absorb, but I think it's interesting that conservation laws are being examined more closely. The creation of matter and energy as a phenomena of nature is exciting.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology said:It relaxes the requirement of the conservation of energy-momentum (or four-momentum) so the scalar field may interact directly with matter.
In the new Self-Creation Cosmology theory (henceforth referred to as just SCC) the modification of the Brans Dicke theory, which allows the creation of matter and energy, is constrained by the principle of the local conservation of energy. This has the effect that rest masses vary whereas the observed Newtonian Gravitation ’constant’ does not. Furthermore, there is a conformal equivalence between SCC and General Relativity in vacuo, which results in the predictions of the two theories being equal in the standard tests.