Solar Cycle cause

sscully said:
You don't say.... MIND BLOWN.
Click to expand...
Yep, it is kind of awesome to think that almost every molecule in our bodies have atoms that were formed in stars. Only hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium were in any quantity before stars were formed and fused the heavier elements.

I had no idea that matter exists everywhere.
Click to expand...
Huh? What is that suppose to mean?
 
origin said:
Yep, it is kind of awesome to think that almost every molecule in our bodies have atoms that were formed in stars. Only hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium were in any quantity before stars were formed and fused the heavier elements.


Huh? What is that suppose to mean?
Click to expand...

It means you are making assumptions about the origins of all atoms on Earth. Yes, supernovae happen. But don't ignore the amount of uranium in the Earth. The most we can truly say is that all things are made of the same stuff (matter), beyond that is assumptions.
 
sscully said:
It means you are making assumptions about the origins of all atoms on Earth. Yes, supernovae happen. But don't ignore the amount of uranium in the Earth. The most we can truly say is that all things are made of the same stuff (matter), beyond that is assumptions.
Click to expand...

You speak of assumptions??? Rather hypocritical I must say.

Supernovas happen, you agree. Stars that go supernova, have also undergone nuclear fusion. Or do you also have another hypothesis explaining that? Nuclear fusion as the name suggests, fuses light elements into heavier ones, at least up to Iron/Nickel. The supernova itself is responsible for elements above that.
Yep, without a shadow of doubt, we are all literally just star dust!
 
paddoboy said:
You speak of assumptions??? Rather hypocritical I must say.

Supernovas happen, you agree. Stars that go supernova, have also undergone nuclear fusion. Or do you also have another hypothesis explaining that? Nuclear fusion as the name suggests, fuses light elements into heavier ones, at least up to Iron/Nickel. The supernova itself is responsible for elements above that.
Yep, without a shadow of doubt, we are all literally just star dust!
Click to expand...

Stars are not inherently the only place where elements are formed. This is an assumption that is being made. All that we can say is we are all composed of the same thing: matter. How that matter is manipulated into different forms is based on assumptions from what we observe which may or may not be actually true without a full understanding of the universe.

For example, how does uranium still exist on Earth in such abundance, in your "stardust" view? If the Earth is billions of years old, why is there still radioactive material if Earth isn't creating it itself?
 
sscully said:
Stars are not inherently the only place where elements are formed. This is an assumption that is being made.
Click to expand...


An assumption based on current knowledge and logic, and yes, all elements, other then the original primordial Hydrogen and some Helium are nucleosynthesised in the belly of stars.



sscully said:
For example, how does uranium still exist on Earth in such abundance, in your "stardust" view? If the Earth is billions of years old, why is there still radioactive material if Earth isn't creating it itself?
Click to expand...

This "stardust view"as you put it, is not my view.
I also realise its useless to describe to you how stars and planets do form, according to current observational data, so I'll suggest you google.
It's actually quite simple and has been observed.
 
sscully said:
For example, how does uranium still exist on Earth in such abundance, in your "stardust" view? If the Earth is billions of years old, why is there still radioactive material if Earth isn't creating it itself?
Click to expand...

Good question. The uranium used in nuclear reactors is fissionable U235. That has a halflife of 704 million years. But after 4.5 billion years there should be hardly any of it left, right. Well, guess what, only .72% of the uranium found in nature is U235. The majority of the Uranium found in nature is U238 >99% and it has a halflife of 4.7 billion years. Makes sense, right?

Did you know that there use to be enough U235 that there was actually natural reactors? Approximately 2 billion years ago when the percentage of U235 was higher in uranium deposits the ground water moderated neutrons and resulted in natural self sustained fission reactions. That can no longer happen though because the amount of U235 is not a high enough percentage in naturally occuring uranium deposits.

You should realize the real universe is a pretty fascinating place and there is no need to make up shit to make it seem interesting.
 
origin said:
Good question. The uranium used in nuclear reactors is fissionable U235. That has a halflife of 704 million years. But after 4.5 billion years there should be hardly any of it left, right. Well, guess what, only .72% of the uranium found in nature is U235. The majority of the Uranium found in nature is U238 >99% and it has a halflife of 4.7 billion years. Makes sense, right?

Did you know that there use to be enough U235 that there was actually natural reactors? Approximately 2 billion years ago when the percentage of U235 was higher in uranium deposits the ground water moderated neutrons and resulted in natural self sustained fission reactions. That can no longer happen though because the amount of U235 is not a high enough percentage in naturally occuring uranium deposits.

You should realize the real universe is a pretty fascinating place and there is no need to make up shit to make it seem interesting.
Click to expand...

Thanks origin for that insightful rundown on U and its Isotopes.
 
origin said:
Good question. The uranium used in nuclear reactors is fissionable U235. That has a halflife of 704 million years. But after 4.5 billion years there should be hardly any of it left, right. Well, guess what, only .72% of the uranium found in nature is U235. The majority of the Uranium found in nature is U238 >99% and it has a halflife of 4.7 billion years. Makes sense, right?

Did you know that there use to be enough U235 that there was actually natural reactors? Approximately 2 billion years ago when the percentage of U235 was higher in uranium deposits the ground water moderated neutrons and resulted in natural self sustained fission reactions. That can no longer happen though because the amount of U235 is not a high enough percentage in naturally occuring uranium deposits.

You should realize the real universe is a pretty fascinating place and there is no need to make up shit to make it seem interesting.
Click to expand...

Compliments.

I'll bet you can answer this one if you think about it hard enough.

What is "my" half life?
 
origin said:
Good question. The uranium used in nuclear reactors is fissionable U235. That has a halflife of 704 million years. But after 4.5 billion years there should be hardly any of it left, right. Well, guess what, only .72% of the uranium found in nature is U235. The majority of the Uranium found in nature is U238 >99% and it has a halflife of 4.7 billion years. Makes sense, right?

Did you know that there use to be enough U235 that there was actually natural reactors? Approximately 2 billion years ago when the percentage of U235 was higher in uranium deposits the ground water moderated neutrons and resulted in natural self sustained fission reactions. That can no longer happen though because the amount of U235 is not a high enough percentage in naturally occuring uranium deposits.

You should realize the real universe is a pretty fascinating place and there is no need to make up shit to make it seem interesting.
Click to expand...

And you are quoting data of uranium that is on the surface of Earth (i.e. in the crust of the Earth). Migration from center to edge is not instant.
 
sscully said:
And you are quoting data of uranium that is on the surface of Earth (i.e. in the crust of the Earth). Migration from center to edge is not instant.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you? Why do you work so hard at remaining ignorant?
 
sscully said:
Please explain why you've assumed ignorance
Click to expand...
It is not assumed it has been demonstrated.

with no rebuttal to what I just said.
Click to expand...
Why you will just ignore it like you have ignored all attempts to help you so far.

Besides how do you respond to, "Migration from center to edge is not instant". What is that suppose to mean? Never mind I don't care.
 
sscully said:
That's funny, that you think I care what you believe. I have no interest in telling lies, that is not the way of an enlightened soul.
Click to expand...

I think it's time to pull the plug on all your Creationist pseudoscience trolling. I'm calling you out: state ONE CLAIM out of the many you've posted here, which purports to demonstrate that some basic principle of science is flawed, and back it up with evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top