|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Randy has given a kinetic energy number you agreed with - 8 x 10^29 joules - which must be dissipated for your planetesimal to form continents. That's about 2 x 10^29 calories. Let's assume half of that can somehow be dissipated in mechanical breaking of rocks, etc.
The earth's crust weighs about 1.4 x 10^26 grams, of rock with a specific heat around .2 - let's assume .25. (Mass of oceans an atmosphere are negligible alongside this.) A starting physics calculation will show that your impact will heat the entire crust by about 2850 degrees C = 5100 degrees F, ignoring phase changes. It ain't gonna work."--Hence, his global magma ocean. The mass of the plametisimal is likely to chemically fractionate all of its contents into the proto-earth before having it concentrate it as lithospheric continents. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That is the notion which has the most evidence behind it. Show me some reason to take your ideas seriously. So far, I have seen nothing but about hundred violations of the laws of physics and no explaination of how this is possible.
quote: There is no particular order required. Whatever was drifting around would eventually accumulate into something. And various processes would sort and shuffle things around, as someone, I cannot remember who, has already explained.
quote: hmmmm...... I wouldn't ridicule the wee ones. Faerie magic may be the only hope your theory has.
quote: Not I, my friend. I am just the messenger.
quote: Hang on.... AS WE UNDERSTAND????? Thank you for that admission. You don't actually know, but rest your hopes in what you imagine will be understood, eventually. Am I close?
quote: Except that there is no evidence for any of it-- not for the binary pair, not for the element formation during the coalescence of the binary pair, not for the 'continent from space,' not for anything as far as I can tell. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LRP Inactive Member |
BINARY COLLAPSE AND ELEMENT FORMATION
The last few posts on element formation from Ipetrich, Coragypys, PaulK and Percipient and John can all be responded to in this post. PERCIPIENT favours the theory that over billions of years explosive events in stars would have produced all the material for our Solar System. This theory is without any real evidence since no one has been able to observe debris from an exploding star being absorbed into anything like a Solar Nebula and exactly what goes on within the depths of a star is also speculative as astrophysicists will themselves admit. Any particle that has a high enough velocity to escape the gravity of the exploding star will be diffused evenly into the emptiness of space and not accumulate in one location. If in the unlikely event that such material did somehow form a nebula it would be one that would be cold, and devoid of the higher elementsThe nebula from which our Solar System was formed could not have been just a random accumulation of ejected material. The nebula had to have rotation about a high mass pivotal body. It also had to have all the elements sorted out into useful concentrations-not all mixed together. There is no reason or evidence that random supernovas can produce such a nebula of the sort that led to the formation of our solar system. IPETRICH comments that element sorting in the Solar System is a product of its formation!! He does not say which theory for formation of the Solar System is being referred to here, as there are so many theories. In my theory the sorting out of the elements takes place within the Solar Nebula itself and the planets form after the nebula has contracted and cooled and elements (and their compounds) have already been sorted out by gravitational, magnetic and high speed particle fluxes. The sorting out of the elements is a prerequisite to understanding why all the planets differ in the way they do. CORAGYPS quite rightly says that for element formation you need simultaneous very high density, temperatures and a huge flux of neutrons. The collapse of a binary star is not a quiet merger but a stupendously dramatic event which elegantly provides all that is needed to form all the elements. The collapse of a binary results in the conversion of a huge amount of kinetic energy into heat, pressure and radiations which does the necessary transformations close to and further out from the collision region itself. PAULK questions the right order of elements. In a binary collapse there is no right order. Elements are formed at random whenever and wherever conditions for their formation are correct. Within the environs of a collapsed binary there are billions of situations with different combinations of density, temperature and flux intensity.Random formation is to be expected-it’s the sorting out of the elements that is all important. Finally JOHN comments that there is no evidence for my theory.Any astronomer will tell you that there are more binary stars than single stars and binary collapses are areas of research in some universities and observatories. Einstein used his theory of relativity to predict what would happen if a binary star collapses and his prediction was later confired by Hulse and taylor who won a Noble Prize for this research. The real evidence is what we see all round us today. We look at the sun-I see in it the remnants of a binary star and sunspot activity tells me that within it are the remains of another star. We look at the oceans-I see the origin of water as hydrogen and oxygen produced in a binary star collapse. We breathe in an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. My theory tells me why the Earth has this atmosphere rather than one of carbon dioxide or methane etc as other planets do. We live on land made from a huge variety of soil and rock minerals. The same theory tells me how these minerals came to be formed. I could go on and on citing evidence that is plain to see all around us. I just happen to prefer a single unifying theory instead of the ten or twelve different theories proposed by scientists throughout the ages to explain the same evidence. Ofcourse the stumbling block to my theory is not lack of evidence but the fact that it has biblical support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
LRP:
PERCIPIENT favours the theory that over billions of years explosive events in stars would have produced all the material for our Solar System. This theory is without any real evidence since no one has been able to observe debris from an exploding star being absorbed into anything like a Solar Nebula It would take several million years for that to happen, and we have not been observing interstellar space in detail for that long. This argument is like saying that all the trees you have ever seen must have been created at their full size, since you have not seen one growing from a seed. and exactly what goes on within the depths of a star is also speculative as astrophysicists will themselves admit. However, considerable progress has been made in that field, and there is actual observed evidence of nucleosynthesis, like technetium in certain stars and nickel-56 in supernovae. Both Tc and Ni-56 have half-lives much less than the age of the Universe, so they must have been produced relatively recently. Any particle that has a high enough velocity to escape the gravity of the exploding star will be diffused evenly into the emptiness of space and not accumulate in one location. Except that it would not need to "accumulate in one location". The Solar System's heavy elements are a small fraction of its mass, which is consistent with mixing. The nebula had to have rotation about a high mass pivotal body. Totally unnecessary. It could get all the angular momentum it "needs" from turbulence. It also had to have all the elements sorted out into useful concentrations-not all mixed together. Except that there are various processes that can sort elements. IPETRICH comments that element sorting in the Solar System is a product of its formation!! You can observe element sorting if you overcook food until it chars in a thermal oven (microwave ones don't work well for this). What happens is that most of the hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen of the organic-material parts evaporates, leaving behind the carbon. And the same thing had happened to the Solar System as it formed. Why is the inner Solar System rocky and the outer Solar System icy? It can't be a coincidence that ice evaporates at a much lower temperature than rock. He does not say which theory for formation of the Solar System is being referred to here, as there are so many theories. What theories? The collapse of a binary star is not a quiet merger but a stupendously dramatic event which elegantly provides all that is needed to form all the elements. ... Like the interior of a massive star? Actually, the coalescence of two 1/2-solar-mass stars will not produce enough heat and pressure to perform much nucleosynthesis; this can be determined from how much would make the two stars disintegrate. Any astronomer will tell you that there are more binary stars than single stars and binary collapses are areas of research in some universities and observatories. So what? That does not demonstrate the binary-star origin of the Solar System. And inspiraling pairs of neutron stars are suspected to be the source of r-process elements -- which are mostly heavy elements. But we see a lot of hydrogen in the Solar System and not a lot of uranium. We look at the sun-I see in it the remnants of a binary star and sunspot activity tells me that within it are the remains of another star. How are sunspots supposed to be evidence of that? Starspots have been observed on numerous other stars; are they all coalesced binaries? We look at the oceans-I see the origin of water as hydrogen and oxygen produced in a binary star collapse. Except that the hydrogen comes from the Big Bang and that the oxygen comes from the interiors of long-ago massive stars. (other such non sequiturs snipped...) I just happen to prefer a single unifying theory instead of the ten or twelve different theories proposed by scientists throughout the ages to explain the same evidence. Like what ten or twelve different theories? List them for us. Ofcourse the stumbling block to my theory is not lack of evidence but the fact that it has biblical support. WHAT biblical support? Your theory is dead wrong on several counts, and all you can do is whine that your theory is rejected because it is supposedly supported by the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
LRP writes: PERCIPIENT favours the theory that over billions of years explosive events in stars would have produced all the material for our Solar System. This theory is without any real evidence since no one has been able to observe debris from an exploding star being absorbed into anything like a Solar Nebula and exactly what goes on within the depths of a star is also speculative as astrophysicists will themselves admit. Science is not limited to the study of that which can be directly observed. It is not direct vs. indirect that is key, but whether there is an established chain of causation from the event itself to the human observable expression of that event. We understand the processes taking place in the interior of stars very well, and astrophysicists would not deem this understanding "speculative" as you have claimed.
Any particle that has a high enough velocity to escape the gravity of the exploding star will be diffused evenly into the emptiness of space and not accumulate in one location. Well, of course. Nova and supernova are occurring everywhere throughout the universe, and the ejected material becomes randomly distributed throughout space. In some places it eventually condenses into gas clouds called nebula.
If in the unlikely event that such material did somehow form a nebula it would be one that would be cold, and devoid of the higher elements. Such nebula would consist of all material scattered into the void by nova and supernova, and that includes the heavy elements.
The nebula from which our Solar System was formed could not have been just a random accumulation of ejected material. The nebula had to have rotation about a high mass pivotal body. It also had to have all the elements sorted out into useful concentrations-not all mixed together. There is no reason or evidence that random supernovas can produce such a nebula of the sort that led to the formation of our solar system. On the contrary, such nebula condense from the material available in space, and that includes the heavy material contributed by nova and supernova. I don't know if your rotational requirements for nebula are correct, but the requirements will be similar whether for a solar system like ours or a binary system such as you postulate. Differentiation, what you called "sorting", occurs by the simple laws of physics once sufficient condensation takes place for gravitational effects to become significant. Our solar system includes elements that require a supernova to produce them. Your theory postulates a binary system, so we can only consider the Type 1 supernova, produced in binary systems consisting of a white dwarf and a star very much like our own sun. The dwarf pulls in material from the star and eventually explodes into a supernova, either blasting away the star completely or leaving only a dense core. Our solar system bears no resemblance to this. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If there is no "right order" for elements to arrive, then your argument that it is "absurd" that they would arrive in the right order under conventional views of element formation is a clear falsehood.
If I read you correctly you have withdrawn the claim that there is a "right order" but now I have to ask why you used an argument that relied on there being such a thing and why you have not explicitly retracted it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
quote: This above quoted (from message 79) is where this topic apparently started its turn towards toward the "Big Bang and Cosmology" subject of the creation of the various elements. This topic has much been there since. Time to lay this topic to rest? How about someone starting a "creation of the elements" topic, with a reference back to this topic? Adminnemooseus I think we need some more moderators, official or otherwise, to try to keep things on topic. ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: We do see stars pouring out debris. Space it full of such debris, and we see clumps of it here and there and stars forming inside those clumps. We can model this distribution/dispersion and infer a relationship.
quote: Most of the physics is quite well understood, as percy mentioned.
quote: But you are forgetting that space isn't evenly empty. Once some pertubation-- say, from the passing of a star-- compresses a portion of the gas cloud to just a bit more dense than than than the surrounding gas, that compressed portion become a center of gravity and other material will flow toward it.
quote: Your nebula would start off cold as well, until gravitational contraction heats it up. So, I am not sure what objection is intended. And why would the nebula be devoid of higher elements? Those elements would have been formed in the supernovas and ejected along with the other debris.
quote: Gravitational contraction along with angular momentum would provide this rotation.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.suite101.com%2farticle.cfm%2fastronomy%2f15349/ quote: You still won't let go of this will you? Lets see... Why is water not found on Mercury? The sun boils it off. Think about it.
quote: Right. But you cannot infer from the general to the specific. It is a logical fallacy. For example, most dogs are less than 100 pounds. But you cannot pick a dog at random and conclude that it is under 100 pounds. It probably is, but it might also be a Great Pyrenees or big Rottweiler. You need additional evidence to make the claim, and you don't have it.
quote: Big deal. The predictions don't match anything we observe in our solar system.
quote: What? I assume you have sources to confirm this sunspot/star-inside-the-sun connection?
quote: So does the more accepted theory of solar formation.
quote: I strongly disagree. The stumbling block IS the lack of evidence. And since you defy great portions of accepted science, you need a LOT of evidence. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I have received an e-mail from John Solum, in which he states:
quote: So, once again, I suggest someone take the "elements creation" etc. theme to a new topic, and there supply a link back to this topic. This topic is now closed. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024