Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 266 of 373 (741373)
11-11-2014 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by NoNukes
11-11-2014 12:41 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
Smaller stars are not the ones that would provide early super novas either.
Your source does not claim that there were no large population III stars. At best they were rarer than they are now. So no, that does not eliminate the possibility of large stars at all. HD140283 seems to be fairly unique.
The citation claimed that Population III stars were primarily binary star systems and yes smaller.
HD 140283 in not rarer than population III stars. Population III stars should dominate the farthest stellar objects observed, but they do not. In fact no population III stars are present, to the surprise of astronomy.
quote:
ABE:
Just looked up some numbers the size of star that can form a type II supernova is about 10 solar masses. The expected life time of such stars is 31 million years. The expected lifetime of a 25 solar mass star is about 3 million years. These time frames are quite small compared to 400 million years.
On the other hand, a star having a lifetime of an appreciable portion of 400 million years would be about 4 solar masses.
Exactly what limits does your article put on the sizes of population III stars? Oh wait, it doesn't give any such details.
End ABE:
Your point is valid, but it is just speculation at this point if these stars even existed. Since finding a population III star would be one of the most significant finds in modern astronomy. Without any empirical evidence of a population III star, no one can claim that all metals except lithium were created in stars.
And how old is the milky way?
Another question is star birth rate verses star death rate. The last supernova observed in our galaxy was 147 years ago, yet the birth rate of stars in our galaxy is estimated to be about 1 new star a year. In a galaxy that is as old as the universe a equilibrium should now exist between star births and deaths. Just a thought.
Edited by zaius137, : Removed my statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2014 12:41 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Astrophile, posted 11-11-2014 10:58 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 268 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2014 11:28 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 334 by Astrophile, posted 11-13-2014 8:02 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 269 of 373 (741380)
11-12-2014 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by NoNukes
11-11-2014 11:28 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
As for dominating the most distant stars, population III stars would not dominate the most distant visible stars. And to confirm population III requires spectroscopic information. The big easily visible ones are all gone. Who knows how many tiny population stars that are close to 13billion years old there might be. Are you going to address this or pretend that it has not been said.
Avoiding population III stars altogether
Just for fun.
Age of the universe = 13.7 billion years
Dark age of the universe = 400 million years
Until around 400 million years after the Big Bang, the Universe was a very dark place. There were no stars, and there were no galaxies. Scientists would like to unravel the story of exactly what happened after the Big Bang. The James Webb Space Telescope will pierce this veil of mystery and reveal the story of the formation of the first stars and galaxies in the Universe. Early Universe - Webb/NASA
13.7 billion years - 400 million years = 13.3 billion years (first stars)
minimum age of HD140283 = 14.3 billion years - 800 million years = 13.5 billion years
13.3 billion years (first stars) is less than the minimum age of HD 140283 (13.5) billion years.
HD 140283 is older than the universe. Any earlier estimates for star formation are based on dark matter. Dark matter is a ad-hoc concoction to balance the equation of state for BB.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2014 11:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 1:35 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 270 of 373 (741381)
11-12-2014 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Astrophile
11-11-2014 10:58 PM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
This should have been in 1867, but the last directly observed supernova that I know about was Kepler's supernova in 1604, 410 years ago. Can you tell me more about SN 1867, such as who observed it and which constellation it was in?
I'll try to discuss your other points in another post; it's late, and I ought to be asleep.
You are correct...
I am sorry my friend, I mixed up that date. The actual date was:
The last directly observed supernova in the Milky Way was Kepler's Star of 1604 (SN 1604) Supernova - Wikipedia
410 years ago I stand corrected.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Astrophile, posted 11-11-2014 10:58 PM Astrophile has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 271 of 373 (741384)
11-12-2014 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by RAZD
11-11-2014 12:59 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
The light emissions also matched the spectral bars for these elements.
Do you have a citation, decay flux is usually inside the error figure. I know there is evidence for radioactive decay variability (let us talk).
quote:
So you agree with the 13.7980.037 billion years, currently accepted age?
That is the accepted date but as I have shown there are problems. Other issues follow from the reliability of CMB as a gage. For instance CMB is not casting the predicted shadow
quote:
And you may not be considering aspects of string theory and the 'brane model
It is a 5d model by Carmeli: CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY: THE UNIVERSE IS SPATIALLY FLAT WITHOUT DARK MATTER | SpringerLink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2014 12:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 3:05 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:24 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 273 of 373 (741390)
11-12-2014 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by NoNukes
11-12-2014 1:35 AM


Re: The hand of God
quote:
That just is not true. There is still a progression of metalicity with age, and the distributions of heavy metals is highly suggestive that the metals were created in stars. Even without metal free stars, those things are indirect evidence of the source of metals. And of course we've actually observed the creation of heavy metals in supernova. And we can calculate the energies required to form them.
None of which is proof of course, but we never get that from science.
Yes metals are created in stars, I am not unfamiliar with thermonuclear fusion.
The real issue is empirical evidence. God could have created the universe by the BB, that proposition is in doubt. I reject the BB on the merits of science alone. I am not looking for verification from science to enforce my worldview. On the contrary, my worldview enforces my view of science. I do not have enough faith to take speculation as a tautology.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. Was no "/" in the closer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 1:35 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2014 10:54 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 277 of 373 (741477)
11-12-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by RAZD
11-12-2014 8:24 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
You need to provide citations for this.
I believe that measured decay error variance may be because some elements decay rate changes with times of the year (maybe rotation of the sun’s core).
Here are some links
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates | The Institute for Creation Research
http://dinosaurc14ages.com/changedecay.htm
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
Do nuclear decay rates depend on our distance from the sun? « the physics arXiv blog
Republikslot: Daftar 10 Situs Judi Slot Dan Casino Online Terbaik
 photo 160px-DecayRate_vs_Solar_Time.png
Decay Rate of Radon-222 as a function of date and time of day. The color-bar gives the power of the observed signal and represents ~4% seasonal decay rate variation. Republikslot: Daftar 10 Situs Judi Slot Dan Casino Online Terbaik
http://phys.org/news202456660.html
Big question in my mind If Carbon 14 has not varied in the past how come there is measurable amounts in diamonds, fossils and coal seams?
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by JonF, posted 11-12-2014 5:18 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 281 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 6:25 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:01 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 278 of 373 (741478)
11-12-2014 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Theodoric
11-12-2014 10:54 AM


Re: The hand of God
Facts are facts, it is the interpretation of facts that is important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2014 10:54 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 279 of 373 (741479)
11-12-2014 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by RAZD
11-12-2014 8:24 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
Curiously the 'brane models don't need the dark stuffs but still give you the old universe ... in an even older hyper-universe
CARMELI’S COSMOLOGY also gives us a galactrocentric universe, yes old, but still conforms to a creationist cosmology. Big Bang has no more predictive power, the 5d does.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:41 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 285 of 373 (741508)
11-12-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by JonF
11-12-2014 5:18 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.
You mean Dr. Bertshe the MD? Sorry he is a physicist (Kirk)
The person he criticizes is John R. Baumgardner a geophysicist. You have to be kidding..
Went threw that citation of yours but did not find a significant argument against 14C in diamonds.
I am willing to review your proof of that statement. Otherwise I will view your opinion as just an opinion. 14C was detected, does that stament hurt that much?
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by JonF, posted 11-12-2014 5:18 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2014 9:46 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 9:49 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 308 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:12 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 286 of 373 (741509)
11-12-2014 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by edge
11-12-2014 6:25 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
quote:
So, in the case of 14C, if the rate varies by 0.1%, that would mean that the half-life would vary by 5.7 years in 5700 years.
And that, of course, would be if the variation from the accepted half-life was continuous, which does not appear to be the case.
Now, as I look up the C14 half life, I get this value: 5730+/-40 years.
(Carbon-14 - Wikipedia)
Note the error bounds, which, if I understand correctly, would include more than the 0.1% variability that we are talking about here.
So, what is the significance of this effect, in the context of a 6ky old earth?
Weird, eh?
I will defer to any physicists here who can correct me on this.
I did not claim that 14C varied significantly as measured today. If 14C is in diamonds or coal they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way. One or the other.
If radio active decay varied at all, even .01% (not just error in measurement) then the principle of radio decay invariance is nonsense.
But maybe you prefer Dr. Bertshe the MD (Sorry he is a physicist (Kirk)) tell you that a geophysicist is wrong.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 6:25 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2014 9:51 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 299 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 12:13 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 306 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 3:18 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 287 of 373 (741510)
11-12-2014 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by RAZD
11-12-2014 8:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
quote:
Note how old this information is, and that knowing it would mean that creationists that wanted to discredit 14C dating to gullible people could go looking for coal etc deposits next to radioactive materials
I do not contest 14C dates we observe today. maybe they varied in the past, if they did not please explain 14C in diamonds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 10:05 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 292 of 373 (741515)
11-12-2014 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by RAZD
11-12-2014 9:49 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
quote:
Curiously none of his creationist papers are in peer reviewed science journals, including any articles about 14C in coal and oil ... care to guess why?
Yes, regardless the credential a creationist is labeled a outsider.
quote:
Now I am sure that Baumgardner was familiar with the process of radiation contamination of diamonds and coal and oil and other such substances, and so he knew that all he needed to do was find some materials contaminated in this way, submit it to a testing lab and await the predictable results.
Carbon-14 is most commonly produced in the upper atmosphere from Nitrogen-14 not in diamonds or oil. How much Nitrogen-14 is in diamonds? Small amounts I would guess, so production in that way would be rare in diamonds. I would think that would be the same case for oil and coal right, just trace amounts. You could then assume that Carbon-14 production is rare in the host materials.
I have every confidence that professor Baumgardner is familiar with sample contamination.
Path for the rarer production of Carbon-14 like from your post.
quote:
Carbon-14 can also be produced by other neutron reactions, including in particular 13C(n,gamma)14C and 17O(n,alpha)14C with thermal neutrons, and 15N(n,d)14C and 16O(n,3He)14C with fast neutrons.[14] The most notable routes for 14C production by thermal neutron irradiation of targets (e.g., in a nuclear reactor) are summarized in the table.
quote:
The variation is 14C levels in different rocks of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the rocks.
I am not aware that 14C in rocks has that much relevance for dating them, I thought Potassium Argon dating was predominate for rock dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 9:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2014 10:58 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 297 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:10 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 300 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 12:57 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 311 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 8:47 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 312 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 9:00 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 293 of 373 (741516)
11-12-2014 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by RAZD
11-12-2014 10:05 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
quote:
Good, because I can demonstrate that it correlates with historical data back to the Egyptians, and I can further show you the correlation with tree rings and lake varves for continuous annual layers back to the limits of 14C dating (40,000 to 50,000 years).
The correlation is necessary for increased accuracy due to the known variation of 14C in the atmosphere from the production of 14C by solar cosmic radiation. From the correlation we can now use the actual 14C/13C ratios in objects to determine their probable ages within a known margin of error.
Good, now you can define a date of a diamond with 14C present?
I do not contest the dates of Egyptian culture, simply because most dates correspond to dates in the Bible. You know that those older dates for 14C percentages are recalibrated to other dates to increase accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 6:49 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 295 of 373 (741518)
11-12-2014 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by RAZD
11-12-2014 10:05 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
quote:
Radiation from surrounding rocks. The 1977 paper in Message 283 tells you that close proximity to radioactive materials can cause 14C to form in the carbon control rods used in reactors. The rods are almost pure carbon, as are diamonds.
Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod.
They are composed of chemical elements such as boron, silver, indium and cadmium wiki
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 10:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:29 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 332 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 7:31 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3410 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 296 of 373 (741519)
11-12-2014 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Coyote
11-12-2014 10:58 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
quote:
You mean rocks, like diamonds and coal?
I am not sure... that was from RAZD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2014 10:58 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024