Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 240 of 373 (741142)
11-10-2014 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by zaius137
11-09-2014 9:15 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
It is not a matter of relating the speed of light to distances, it is a matter of the assumed inflation epoch.
Are you using inflation and expansion interchangeably? This is probably confusing.
You miss the point completely, the problem is relating the age of the universe. We can see objects 45 billion years ago in time
No, we cannot see any such objects. You are confusing observable with visible. It is not possible to see past the horizon of last scattering. That point is just a bit past 13.8 billion light years.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 9:15 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 373 (741143)
11-10-2014 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by zaius137
11-09-2014 8:31 PM


Re: The hand of God
By the way population III stars apparently don’t exist or have never been observed. Population III should be very plentiful at long distances as observed from earth.
But should such stars be easy to observe? The oldest stars are necessarily the small dim stars. Even stars the size of the sun would be dead by now.
Then HD 140283 formed from population III supernova in that same 400 million (corrected) years. This seems (Impossible) unlikely.
How do you estimate this probability?
We are just getting started.
You have yet to start, but you're already putting up propositions with errors in them and making assertions without backing them up.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 8:31 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 11:51 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 245 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:10 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 373 (741207)
11-10-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by zaius137
11-10-2014 12:10 PM


Re: The hand of God
Ok, I need specifics from you about what is not backed up. Everyone makes errors, even you.
I've already noted some in my posts.
We all make errors, yes. But I've seldom seen someone as loathe to admit an error as you.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:10 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 249 of 373 (741211)
11-10-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by zaius137
11-10-2014 11:51 AM


Re: The hand of God
Likely this time frame would be impossible, because some Population III stars would have to have formed, aged and went supernova before HD140283 could have formed (that by metals available in the early universe).
Just hand waving an assertion.
The stars that go super nova are the very large ones. Very large stars have lifetimes measured in a few million years with the largest having even smaller life times. Given that, what is the basis for your assessment of improbability of supernova creating and spewing heavy metals in the time frame required for HD140283? And given the vastness of the universe, what is the basis for assuming that it is unlikely that there is not at least one HD140283? 1 in 10? 1 in 10^9?
What stops the addition of metals long after HD140283 is created?
Finally, is it not the case that even small errors in estimating the error bars around the measurement of the age of HD140283 provide even more time for creating heavy elements.
I don't believe you have any possible way to make even a back of the envelope calculation of the probabilities. And you aren't going to get away with faking it.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 11:51 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 10:18 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 373 (741213)
11-10-2014 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by zaius137
11-10-2014 12:05 PM


The heavens and the Earth were first created then afterward was the six days of creation
That's a pretty liberal reading of the text. The text literally places the creation of the stars, the sun and the moon after the creation of the earth and electromagnetic radiation. You are welcome to your gap, but the sun and stars were not created during that gap. They are stated to be created on day four.
That's probably off the topic.
In any event, your position on the age of the universe is noted. Can we assume that a universe of at least 13.5 billion years of age is of no theological problem for you.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 12:05 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 373 (741318)
11-11-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by zaius137
11-10-2014 10:18 PM


Re: The hand of God
Restating my point: There was not enough time for HD140283 to have formed since the end of inflation. Simply because population III stars did not have enough time to form, age and go supernova. HD140283 was a low metal star not a zero metal star when it formed.
Restatements are not arguments. There was plenty of time.
Smaller stars with less initial metal last longer. So there goes the short lived population III idea. Also population III stars have never been observed (your whole point could be a fairytale).
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.
Also population III stars have never been observed (your whole point could be a fairytale)
If that were the case, then low metal stars would not be much of an issue, would they? We would instead be back to wondering how stars formed at all?
As I've argued before, after 13.x billion years, visible population III stars ought to be fairly rare. The small ones at large distances will be undetectable and the big ones would be all gone.
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:
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 10:18 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by zaius137, posted 11-11-2014 9:41 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 373 (741321)
11-11-2014 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by zaius137
11-10-2014 10:18 PM


Re: The hand of God
There is an inconstancy with population III stars, if they were large and ended in supernova they were likely to have dispersed the metals they formed. If they formed black holes the metals they formed were sucked in. Waive your hands to make all the problems just go away.
Nice try, but again it is best to express a condescending attitudes when you are right about something. This proposition of yours is total nonsense.
Black holes are not super vacuums. The gravity surrounding a black hole is perfectly normal unless you are well within the event horizon. For a very large black hole, there would be no sensation of having crossed the event horizon.
Formation of a black hole would not prevent metal from being dispersed. We would expect a 50 solar mass star to leave behind a black hole of only a few solar masses. The rest of the mass is dispersed.
I know I should cite a source for this, but I'm not going to bother. Such sources are pretty hard to avoid...
Okay... My conscience started bothering me...
Science
quote:
Stellar-mass black holes are born with a bang. They form when a very massive star (at least 25 times heavier than our Sun) runs out of nuclear fuel. The star then explodes as a supernova. What remains is a black hole, usually only a few times heavier than our Sun since the explosion has blown much of the stellar material away.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 10:18 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 373 (741332)
11-11-2014 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by zaius137
11-10-2014 10:42 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
I think CMB is a better gauge for universe age as it relates to BB.
When we talk about age, you may not be considering GR and maybe a gravity well effect for time. This would be a characteristic of a cosmology that disregards the current cosmological principle.
I'm well aware of your belief in alternate cosmologies. But when the discussion gets there you'll be tasked with showing that those cosmologies are more plausible than current cosmology.
In the meantime, it is interesting that there are non-cosmological methods for putting limits on the age of the universe. I highly doubt that you can propose a gravity well explanation for SN1987a or the ages of the sun and the moon because those things are too close to the earth. But we'll see.
I am waiting for NoNukes to run out of gas.
Amusing.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by zaius137, posted 11-10-2014 10:42 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 373 (741379)
11-11-2014 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by zaius137
11-11-2014 9:41 PM


Re: The hand of God
primarily binary star systems and yet smaller
Primarily. Not exclusively. And exclusively is what you need to establish. Were they all less than 10 solar masses? Why would that be?
Stars we find today are also primarily smaller than the sun.
But then there is Eta Carinae.
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.
Also, new stars can be formed at any distance.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by zaius137, posted 11-11-2014 9:41 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 12:14 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 373 (741385)
11-12-2014 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by zaius137
11-12-2014 12:14 AM


Re: The hand of God
"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."
Your statement is not correct. I could understand if you made a similar comment about dark energy, but dark matter has nothing to do with the addition of a cosmological constant. Dark energy is used to explain why the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. Dark matter explains other phenomena.
Why don't you check these things? Are you trusting your memory? How many completely bogus things have you stated as fact?
It is true that no one has every detected a population III star and it seems likely that we might have found one by now.
I think your best argument so far relates to the fact that we have not found any population III stars. However, I think you have overblown the conclusion to state that there is no evidence that the heavy elements were created in stars.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 12:14 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 2:10 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 297 of 373 (741520)
11-12-2014 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by zaius137
11-12-2014 10:17 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
How much Nitrogen-14 is in diamonds? Small amounts I would guess, so production in that way would be rare in diamonds.
"I would guess"? Really, zaius137?
Crystallographic defects in diamond - Wikipedia
quote:
The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen, which can comprise up to 1% of a diamond by mass
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.2518.pdf
quote:
Incorporation of nitrogen in the diamond lattice is energetically favorable, and therefore nearly all natural and synthetic diamond contains some native concentration
of N. Consequently, N is in some way involved in the majority of the defect centers studied in bulk diamond.
You could then assume that Carbon-14 production is rare in the host materials.
Only if your goal was to assert and be wrong. Don't you ever check anything?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 10:17 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:14 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 330 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 7:12 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 373 (741521)
11-12-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by zaius137
11-12-2014 11:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod.
Yes, graphite is used as a component of control rods. The carbon does not have a large cross section for absorption, but that is not it's function. Carbon acts as a moderator to slow down fast neutrons so that they are more readily captured by boron or material effective at neutron capture.
But almost all sources of natural sources of carbon incorporate some nitrogen. That's where the C-14 comes from.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 11:01 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:30 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 315 of 373 (741586)
11-13-2014 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:14 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
The fact that nitrogen-14 is so abundant only helps my case. You see if the sample was contaminated by radiation it would cause a greater abundance of C-14. That contamination would be picked up easier because it would stand out more in the standard deviation.
You cannot possibly be this stupid. Did Baumgardner make this observation or not?
The C-14 is produced regardless of the age of the diamond. It is produced solely by having the diamond near a radioactive source. Thus it completely explains why anyone might detect C-14 in a very old diamond.
You have argued both that having no N-14 trapped in a diamond proves your case and that having a significant amount of N-14 in a diamond helps your case. Quite clearly one of those is wrong.
Nonukes writes:
Only if your goal was to assert and be wrong. Don't you ever check anything?
zaius writes:
You see all your claims about radioactive contamination are just that, claims. Ever time a result is a little bit uncomfortable the knee jerk reaction is to attack the researcher, their methods, their world view on and on.
So your position is that we should just accept bad research if it helps you?
Let's make your own behavior here quite clear. Regardless of what can be concluded about the meaning of the N-14 in a diamond, your 'guess' that there was no significant N-14 is clearly wrong. Yet you cannot admit to making an error. Instead, you spin out an impossible, contradictory impression in an attempt to save Baumgardner's work. And then you impugn my motives?
Well to avoid any need to guess, I'll tell you about my motivation. My primary motive is to expose the shyster behavior and google and guess 'research' that is your trademark. I really don't care about your opinion regarding the age of anything because you've already told us that you are not motivated by the evidence but by your world view.
And you simply cannot post without providing me with such fodder, so keep up the good work. If i were you, I'd consider that when I responded to a NoNukes post. But it won't help. Because you are just as careless with everyone else, and there are plenty of people here who understand radiometric dating, or astronomy, or biology, or particle physics much better than I do.
Keep positing bro. I'm not going to wind down.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:14 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 373 (741588)
11-13-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by edge
11-13-2014 10:44 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
You are living in a fantasy world. I want a concrete explanation here. What makes the discrepancy significant in the sense of the age of the earth?
Here is a possible creationist argument:
The decay rate varies tiny amounts, but despite the researchers claims, the amounts are not linked to solar activity or any thing else we can identify.
Until we can identify a cause, we can postulate that the variations are produced by some phenomena that might have had greater magnitude in the past.
-------
Of course we can rule out the stuff we've tested for like pressure, temperature, magnetic fields, etc. which are known not have any appreciable affects on decay rates of atoms of interest.
The counter argument for C-14 dating is that we actually have correlations with non-atomic sources for ranges that invalidate YEC dating. C-14 dating is of absolutely no use for dating the universe, but it is perfectly fine for the YEC busting like proving there was no recent global flood or demonstrating that human beings were alive a mere 30-40,000 years ago.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by edge, posted 11-13-2014 10:44 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 12:53 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 322 of 373 (741608)
11-13-2014 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:30 AM


Re: Off subject... and still wrong.
just say Zaius you are right.
Right about what zaius? Your question regarding C-14 in control rods? Your useless and irrelevant statement about the effectiveness of carbon as an absorber of neutrons decreasing due to exposure to neutrons, when that is true for every element used as an absorber? Particular when carbon is not used for that purpose?
It was always considered too dangerous for use on a broad scale in the United States.
As a moderator for the reactor, yes. That's a different topic zaius137. Your google and post research has betrayed you again.
Exactly what were you right about? Your post was an attempt to raise questions that were totally besides the point. The point was that we have experience and data confirming that carbon laden control rods exposed to radiation from reactors produces C-14. Your attempts to cast doubt on that were total BS.
Graphite was used primarily as a moderator in early and soviet style reactors. It was always considered too dangerous for use on a broad scale in the United States.
Not sure about the danger aspect. Perhaps that's right. Water is a far better reflector/moderator and it is off course much cheaper.
The distinction you are missing here is graphite used as a moderator for the reactor in general, where the function of the moderator would be to slow down fast neutrons to enhance fission, and graphite as a moderator used in the control rods for the purpose of enhancing the absorption function of the control rods. That latter use is relevant. The former use is not.
Even modern US reactors which often employ hafnium as the neutron absorbing element routine employ that element combined with boron carbide. That's right. Modern control rods have carbon in them.
Full disclosure. I used to operate fission reactors for a living. You aren't going to sneak this stuff by me.
Edited by NoNukes, : add info re: irrelevant

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:30 AM zaius137 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