Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:58 PM
33 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,101 Year: 9,137/19,786 Month: 1,559/2,119 Week: 319/576 Day: 122/98 Hour: 6/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Atheistic, Theistic, YEC or OEC -- That is the Question?
Philip
Member (Idle past 2888 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 16 of 18 (34411)
03-14-2003 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
03-04-2003 6:52 PM


Re: General relativity and accelerated decay are the keys
TB or anyone,

I'm familiar with some of the general relativistic speculations of YECism. But sure, I'd love to hear more on this topic when you have time.

I'm mostly interested in the plausibility of higher elements having even evolved at all (e.g., to be produced or captured by our earth).

Thanks in advance,

Philip


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 03-04-2003 6:52 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 18 (34444)
03-15-2003 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Philip
03-14-2003 7:02 PM


Re: Higher elements
The only production mechanism for significant quantities of heavy elements (basically anything above He) is fusion within stars - though there are some isotopes that can be formed by other processes, 14C and 36Cl through the action of cosmic rays for example or various anthropogenic sources. Stellar fusion can generate elements upto iron, but beyond that the reaction is no longer energetically favourable. Within the core of a massive star, however, with the loss of suitable fuel for fusion the collapse will be so rapid and generate such heat that energetically unfavourable fusion will occur and produce considerable quantities of heavier elements. The final stage of the collapse will be the point where the core density gets so high that protons transmute into neutrons producing a blast of neutrinos and a shockwave that ejects most of the core and outer layers of the star. This is what is called a supernova.

Clearly the rate of supernovae in the galaxy is currently far too low to account for the amount of heavy elements we observe here. However, observations of galaxies much younger than our own shows conclusively that they're dominated by super-massive stars that will very quickly collapse and go supernova. There is no reason to believe that this galaxy was any different when formed than other galaxies. This gives a consistant picture of the evolution of the galaxy - supermassive stars which rapidly go supernova seeding the galaxy with heavy elements, which in turn get incorporated into later stars (note: the presence of trace amounts of heavy elements affects the fusion inside stars, and as such would encourage the formation of smaller stars rather than the early generations of supermassives).

So to address your points 1 to 4 - heavy elements were formed in the nuclear furnaces of supermassive stars in the early stages of the galaxy and dispersed by supernova explosions (with small quantities from more recent supernovae). They weren't captured by our solar system - they were part of the cloud of hydrogen and dust from which our solar system formed.

Alan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Philip, posted 03-14-2003 7:02 PM Philip has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 18 of 18 (34454)
03-15-2003 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Philip
03-14-2003 7:23 PM


Philip writes:

You dogmatically state, again: "There is no evidence for a young earth"

Let's put this back in context. In Message 7 you said:

Surely, WI, there will always be data that supports a very young earth...

To which I replied in Message 8:

There is no scientific evidence supporting a young earth.

Since these were contextual offside comments not directly pertinent to the main topic, which is your speculations about the nature of time, details weren't appropriate and I don't see anything dogmatic about either of our statements. If you wish to discuss the evidence for a young earth simply open a thread.

But I think you're losing sight of your original topic. You began with speculations about a "2 clock system", and now you're off discussing radiometric dating and the origin of the heavy elements. Could you try to tie in for us how this all relates to your original post?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Philip, posted 03-14-2003 7:23 PM Philip has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019