No curly quotes, > close, works just fine.
Copied and pasted quotes are a subtle link killer.
I would have gone with a smaller image, but this can be scrolled across and is large enough to read the details
Posted on 08/15/2020 7:51:17 AM PDT by MtnClimber
No curly quotes, > close, works just fine.
Copied and pasted quotes are a subtle link killer.
I would have gone with a smaller image, but this can be scrolled across and is large enough to read the details
Perhaps God said it best in Genesis 2:7 after making a Man out of the Elements He had created: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
Since the Laws of Thermodynamics are pretty clear that something cannot be created from nothing, and we all agree that something exists which we identify on the Periodic Table as Elements; it is reasonable to conclude that something did come from something.
If true; it is reasonable to project that matter,gases,radiation, even the “Dust of the ground” had a cause or a “Causer”. Since Matter has been taught in Physics to have always existed; and “Bangs” even big ones do not happen in a vacuum of space without a cause(or Causer), it takes a great leap of Faith to believe that blind and random universal forces came together in the”Star Stuff” of the Periodic Table to culminate in a human being.
Perhaps, it take less Faith to believe that a Creator with a purpose took this same “Dust of the ground” from the “Bang” and the “Star Stuff” He had created; then made from it a living human being.
Just saying, do the math of probabilities that all this is random. You will quickly run out of zeros.
Another good question! And there I’m afraid I have no idea...
Great question...
I don't know, but I been told these little critters had something to do with it...
Phil Plait, PhD Astronomer and How The Universe Works tv show host described the process of forming of heavy elements...
He suggested that several Earth volumes of just gold alone would be formed in one neutron star explosion, let alone other elements...Hard for my mind to fathom...
What about the grayish-brown ones (Fr, Ra, etc.), does that color represent a mixture of others? It’s not in the legend.
It seems these elements are radioactive with short half lives so none are directly from star activity. They probably form from decay of heavier elements that have long half lives.
>> Sorry but your post has several errors and misconceptions. Most hydrogen on earth indeed consists of a single proton and a single electron, not two. Two electrons would make hydrogen atoms negatively charged rather than neutral. <<
Hence, I said that two hydrogen atoms share the two electrons, making them neutral. Monoatomic hydrogen does NOT exist on Earth. Where pure hydrogen does exist, it is H2.
>> You are also confounding three different concepts: elemental hydrogen, atomic hydrogen, and molecular hydrogen. Most hydrogen on earth is atomic hydrogen, namely the hydrogen bound to other elements. <<
Yes, and in that case it doesn’t have ANY protons of its own, and instead tends to lose its electrons to the larger molecule, becoming the highly polarized positive end.
>> The primary other element on earth is oxygen, and mostly atomic hydrogen on earth is found in water. Some also is bound to carbon or nitrogen, forming ammonia or hydrocarbons. <<
Yes yes yes,... dur!
>> This article is referring to the elemental hydrogen. This type of hydrogen is the most common component of the current universe. It was also the form of hydrogen synthesized in the Big Bang. This hydrogen consists of a single proton and a single electron, but they are not bound together. The technical term is plasma. <<
Yes, in other words, it’s refering to naked protons as “Hydrogen.” If you didn’t leap to talk down to someone, you’d’ve discovered that the entire point of my post is that it’s technically accurate but kinda stupid to refer to naked protons as Hydrogen when you’re claiming that Hydrogen was formed in the Big Bang. Protons were formed in the big bang. They did not behave in any earthly way that we would associate with Hydrogen, inasmuch as they were plasma.
>>>> Yes, and in that case it doesn’t have ANY protons of its own, <<<<
Obviously, I meant it doesn’t have ANY electrons of its own.
My understanding is that in a plasma state inside stars, protons (1-Hydrogen) collide to form diprotons (2-Helium), which in tiny, tiny fractions of a microsecond decay back to protons. If someone wants to label naked, plasma protons “Hydrogen” in spite of their lack of Hydrogen chemistry, that’s fine. But if those a significant portion of those protons have formed diprotons and decayed again, it’s false to say that were “created in the big bang” to any extent other than that all matter is a product of the big bang.
Actually, it took an incredible period of time — up to 20 minutes — before baryons started to form. I might suggest that any even after cosmic inflation is no longer part of the “bang.”
Ha - I realized that as soon as I posted it...duh!
LOL !
That's basically it -- but the entire story is strengthened now by recent scientific discoveries -- as you'll soon see -- if my fingers will code HTML fast enough...
TXnMA
You are waaaay down the list there bud. Try starting with matter, space and time. Where did THEY come from?
The periodic table presented here -- along with the interpretation of the cosmic structural sources that fusion-synthesized the heavier elements from primordial Hydrogen and Helium is the best explanation I've yet seen of the heavier known elements and the physical and astronomical sources of that "star stuff" of which we're all made.
But, FReeper, trublu, asked a fundamental and essential question -- to which I add a second one:
It's like watching a fireworks show that begins with an attention-grabbing, huge flash and loud BANG! "aerial salute" that then expands ISOTROPICALLY --and dissipates away into "nothing"...
...versus what follows: Beautifully ANISOTROPIC, multicolored, STRUCTURED displays of stars, nested circles, "firefalls", etc.
The difference in fireworks is readily explained: the fireworks designers had the bottom fireworks carefully built of hundreds of identical balls of combustible, chemical mixtures -- often in layers -- each of which burns in a specific color. Then. (in the illustration) those pellets are carefully arranged around a central "expanding charge" that propels them outward in concentric spheres of red, white, and blue fire...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our original questions can be simplified:
Science can now answer, roughly, "HOW?" and "WHEN?" the above occured.
For questions of "WHY" and WHO" -- the answers lie elsewhere...
TXnMA
P.S. More to follow -- If my old fingers hold out...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
