Skip to comments.
The universe before it began
Seed Magazine ^
| 5/22/06
| Maggie Wittlin
Posted on 05/24/2006 3:59:24 PM PDT by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-126 next last
To: Hodar
The heavier elements are created in supernovae. Every atom in your body, except for the hydrogen, has been through a star at least one time.
21
posted on
05/24/2006 4:27:11 PM PDT
by
GW and Twins Pawpaw
(Sheepdog for Five [My grandkids are way more important than any lefty's feelings!])
To: LibWhacker
22
posted on
05/24/2006 4:27:23 PM PDT
by
ADemocratNoMore
(Jeepers, Freepers, where'd 'ya get those sleepers?. Pj people, exposing old media's lies.)
To: Kenny Bunkport
Where did that universe come from? I was asked that question in High School theology class years ago. My smart-ass answer was "the same place God came from"
A cyclical universe would have no beginning nor end, just big-banging, expanding, contracting, and big-banging again
23
posted on
05/24/2006 4:27:33 PM PDT
by
SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
To: GW and Twins Pawpaw
Aha!... But how many stars has the average atom been through?
To: LibWhacker
So now a "Big Bounce" replaces the "Big Bang." Apparently an unspecified number of them.
So, how did this start? Or did it have no start, but has been oscillating in this fashion for eternity? How can we know?
To: Kenny Bunkport
So did God do the "Samantha Nose Wiggle" or was more like Genie's "Cross your Arms and Blink"?
What is the technical explanation for God's creation of the Universe?
26
posted on
05/24/2006 4:32:54 PM PDT
by
Doe Eyes
To: LibWhacker
Who knows? But that's where the little buggers are assembled.:-)
27
posted on
05/24/2006 4:34:32 PM PDT
by
GW and Twins Pawpaw
(Sheepdog for Five [My grandkids are way more important than any lefty's feelings!])
To: LibWhacker
Talk about mythology. Back to infinite regression.
28
posted on
05/24/2006 4:34:58 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: LibWhacker
"loop quantum gravity," Would you not get more defined results by peeing in the wind.
29
posted on
05/24/2006 4:40:28 PM PDT
by
org.whodat
(Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
To: Hodar
Nice try. The Big Bang theory predicts that after the universe cooled to a point where atoms could form (in the first couple of minutes), hydrogen dominated at about 90%, helium followed at about 10%, and minute traces of deuterium (0.015%) and lithium formed. Eventually stars formed and through nuclear fusion higher elements formed. What is interesting is that depending upon the size of the star, only certain elements could form. For example, in smaller stars fusion could only produce up to oxygen. But even in the largest stars, the highest that could be produced by fusion is iron (so that it could remain an exothermic reaction). To form elements past iron, the star had to supernova (which produced elements up to uranium).
Based upon these theories, you would see that most of the universe would be hydrogen, followed by helium. And you would see waste that was blown off of stars (and perhaps forming future generation stars) would be relatively high in elements with an atomic mass less than iron but very low in elements higher than iron. Certain elements such as iron and oxygen (that represent an end to a chain of reactions) would have extremely high concentrations.
This is one of the reasons that the Big Bang Theory has so much support. It's because nuclear physics works like clockwork.
30
posted on
05/24/2006 4:48:44 PM PDT
by
burzum
(Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.--Adm. Rickover)
To: Hodar
As I understand things, the distribution of elements from a 'pure energy' perspective, should be very heavy in the Hydrogen, Helium and taper to a stop around Fe (iron). I'm not sure where you're getting this but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.
That doesn't match reality, because we have tons of Silicon, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Copper, Zinc.
Right. Carbon, Nitrogen, Silicon, and Oxygen are all way lower in the Periodic Table than Iron, so adopting your theory, you would expect them to be more plentiful. Copper and Zinc are in the same row. Titanium and Vanadium are actually LOWER than Iron in the PT. So you would expect them to be MORE abundant, but in fact they're relatively rare.
As you move up the Periodic Table, the frequency of these elements get more and more rare.
And they do, generally speaking. So you've just defeated our own argument. Or did I misunderstand something?
31
posted on
05/24/2006 5:00:06 PM PDT
by
IronJack
To: Publius6961
... WTF did THAT universe come from... ?...and where did that come from, and where did that come from, and that one and that one?
"Scientists" study things they claim are trillions of years old...and never come up with an answer, just postulation. As much proof as we can come up with for there being G-D. I'll stick with my postulation and..."excuse me while I kiss the sky".
FMCDH(BITS)
32
posted on
05/24/2006 5:02:17 PM PDT
by
nothingnew
(I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
To: LibWhacker
It is an idealized set-up which does not connect smoothly to realistic cosmology This is polite language.
33
posted on
05/24/2006 5:02:23 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Off touch and out of base)
To: org.whodat
Would you not get more defined results by peeing in the wind.Yes. I can attest to that, although peeing into the wind is much more defining.
FMCDH(BITS)
34
posted on
05/24/2006 5:04:58 PM PDT
by
nothingnew
(I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
To: LibWhacker
Scientists may finally have an answer to a "big" question: If the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, what could have caused it to happen? Kids playing with matches.
35
posted on
05/24/2006 5:05:32 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death </Stewie>)
To: nothingnew
"Scientists" study things they claim are trillions of years old...and never come up with an answer, just postulation. Billion of years old, not trillions. But the rest is correct. But what would you expect? To expect anything else is to not understand how science works. To explain why is in the realm of philosophers.
36
posted on
05/24/2006 5:07:20 PM PDT
by
burzum
(Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.--Adm. Rickover)
To: DonaldC
I wish I was smart enough to get paid to sit around and think this crap up. I wish I was smart enough to figure this crap out for free.
37
posted on
05/24/2006 5:09:02 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death </Stewie>)
To: freedumb2003
Yeah, but look on the bright side: at least this proves we're all into recycling in a big way. )
To: Sterlis
The same science that can not explain how aspirin works ... I think our Medical Professionals understand this quite well. Would you like me to point out some web sites for you?
39
posted on
05/24/2006 5:12:16 PM PDT
by
Doe Eyes
To: freedumb2003
40
posted on
05/24/2006 5:13:05 PM PDT
by
TYVets
(God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-126 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson