A new kind of metal in the deep Earth

Carnegie Institution ^ | December 19, 2011

[Hegewisch Dupa]

It was amazing how much patience people showed in the face of that nonsense. Maybe it’s the season.

[ml/nj]

Start HereOrigin of Heavy Elements

Well, I tried.

Abundance of Matter Today’s understanding of heavy-element creation is aided by experiments in nuclear laboratories that have proven that larger elements can be built from smaller ones. This is usually accomplished by fusing together two or more relatively light nuclei in a violent collision. Among the collision's debris of energy, elementary particles and light nuclei, are some heavier nuclei as well. Hence, we theorize that all the heavy elements were built up from the lighter elements. In this scheme, the ultimate source of the heavy elements is the lightest and simplest one—hydrogen.

This suffers from the same fallacy I alluded to with my facetious remark earlier about a big flaming woodpile. We only know one way to get from hydrogen to the other elements so that must be the way the other elements got there since we apparently want to believe that everything started out as hydrogen.

Again, astronomers have some evidence that this r-process really does occur in Nature—at least indirect evidence.

I read stuff like this to mean, "We really don't have a clue." If you prefer to take it as proof or strong evidence of something, be my guest; but please allow me to be highly skeptical.

ML/NJ

[GonzoGOP]

Well you are great at dropping one liners about wood piles. So what is your alternate hypothesis? You seem to get great joy out of tearing down other peoples arguments but never propose any of your own. How do you explain the presence of the heavier elements if they are not created in stars?

[GonzoGOP]

That the earth is (nearly) spherical and orbits the sun are observable facts, not theory.

The fact that the unmistakable spectral signatures of heavy elements are present in the material ejected from supernova. Yet are not present in the O and B class stars that form the supernova. Direct, observable evidence that the elements are formed in the supernova itself.

You seem to be very selective on what observable facts you chose to believe and what you simply decide to call BS.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

This ougta be good...

[ml/nj]

What we see is light from these stars. I do agree that it is probable based upon the spectra we see that heavier elements are/were present. But when we do not see such light I don't think it means that the heavy elements are/were not present. The only star we know even a little about is our sun, but that does not mean that all stars are built and work similarly to the sun. For all you know the heavier elements could have been in the supernova's interior since its formation and only become visible (through the star's spectrum) when the star breaks up, assuming it breaks up.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

Well you are great at dropping one liners about wood piles. So what is your alternate hypothesis? You seem to get great joy out of tearing down other peoples arguments but never propose any of your own. How do you explain the presence of the heavier elements if they are not created in stars?

You see, I don't have to propose some alternate hypothesis to reject ones that exist. The same thing comes up all the time with evolution which is demonstrably false. It doesn't mean I have to agree that Genesis is how things happened.

My best guess about the presence of heavier elements is that they can be explained by the same thing or process which created the lighter elements. So we just have to figure that out! And maybe then we figure out why things are clumped together as they are.

ML/NJ

[GonzoGOP]

You see, I don't have to propose some alternate hypothesis to reject ones that exist. The same thing comes up all the time with evolution which is demonstrably false.

Actually you do. You accused another poster of making fallacious rhetorical arguments, so here is your list. You have repeatedly moved the goal posts (Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection), first asking for observational evidence and then when provided saying it isn't enough. You have engaged in repeated Appeal to complexity, if you don't understand how planets form nobody does. You have Appealed to False Authority in your claim to be an expert because you have a physics minor, yet when presented papers by award winning PHDs in physics and astronomy you call them pretenders. You have repeatedly resorted to the Burden Of Proof Fallacy, the claim that whatever has not yet been proved absolutely must be false. Essentially arguing that you win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case. Which leads directly to Failure To State, by making numerous attacks, and asking a lot of questions, yet never actually defining your own position on the topic.

Once again, post an alternative hypothesis for the formation of heavy elements, stellar life cycle and planetary formation. If you want to argue science, fine, but I will waste no more time on pointless rhetoric.

[ml/nj]

You have Appealed to False Authority in your claim to be an expert because you have a physics minor, yet when presented papers by award winning PHDs in physics and astronomy you call them pretenders.

No, Peabrain. I didn't call myself an expert at all. YOU suggested that I should "read some books on physics and astronomy and get away from National Enquirer and astrology." (Such a sophisticated argument!) I merely was indicating that I am reasonably well read on the topic at hand. To you this is unreasonable. I think it is unreasonable to suggest that "award winning PHDs" could never be wrong about about what they won awards for. Do the words "East Anglia" mean anything to you?

And is Carl Sagan one of those "award winning PhDs" you allude to, I wonder. Get yourself a copy of Sagan and Velikovsky. Here's the most recent review at Amazon:

I had known before buying this book that Carl Sagan was an ass but this book filled in much that I did not know beforehand. It is a clearly written disclosure of the unethical and dirty tactics used by Sagan and other like-minded fools to demean the character and ideas of Dr. Velikovsky. Most interesting is that Sagan was quite willing to contradict what he had written in previous books just for the purpose of attacking Velikovsky.

I cite this here not to suggest that Velikovsky's view of anything is correct (though I believe his record is astonishingly good) but because this book exposes organized science for what it is, which is a big, frequently dishonest, protective fraternity.

ML/NJ

[GonzoGOP]

Oh look more rhetoric.
No, Peabrain. = Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.

and also Needling: simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand.

Do the words "East Anglia" mean anything to you? = Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis): you have now tried to bring up evolution and global warming, do try to stay on topic.

And is Carl Sagan one of those "award winning PhDs" you allude to? = No that would be Alex Filippenko, the guy who's lecture series I linked to.

Again state your therory.

[ml/nj]

I think when it comes to astronomy, more people would recognize Carl Sagan's name than Alex Filippenko's. (Did I spell it correctly?)

I guess I'll let others decide whether the points I have made make sense. I stand by them. You are apparently a hopeless case. (I.e. I am just not good enough to convince you.)

ML/NJ

[Hegewisch Dupa]

ahhhh - that truly did not disappoint

[GonzoGOP]

I think when it comes to astronomy, more people would recognize Carl Sagan's name than Alex Filippenko's.

Yes but Sagan has been dead since 1996. Most of the big research on Supernovas come after he was active with Hubble in 1990 (not usable until 1993) and the big 10 meter telescopes at Keck (1996). So he isn't relevant to the discussion.

In contrast Dr. Filippenko quite literally wrote the book on research into supernovae, active galaxies studied in optical, ultraviolet, and near-infrared wavelengths. The exact topic you need study to be analyze the process that create the heavier elements. Filippenko was ranked as the most cited researcher in space science for the ten year period between 1996 and 2006. People who study astronomy will know of him. He also does a lot of public lectures and appears on the TV show The Universe so even most armatures will have seen him. Surprised with all those books you supposedly read on astronomy you haven't.

He wasn't my only source, but he was certainly the most likely to be recognized. But hey I'm the hopeless case right.

[MaxMax]

Thanks for a fascinating link.