Even then, there is no process to distribute these heavier metals other than expansion of gas at sub-light speeds. There is no known process to transfer these elements from the galactic bulge where the first supernovae are thought to occur. Stars are incredibly far apart from each other, and yet science would have us believe that supernovae occurred relatively near every metal-rich star. Furthermore, this would have to collide with gas that somehow is not accelerated away by the massive waves of gamma radiation that precede it. This seems unlikely.
The quantity of added material may also be problematic. Given that an expanding supernova most simply is a sphere of expanding matter, then:
The surface area of this sphere = 4?r2
where r = the distance between the supernova core and the expanding sphere
measured in light years.
Given that the general area of star formation tends to be around 2 light years, an effected area must penetrate a square of two light years by two light years or 4 square light years.
So the effective penetration of a supernova (p) = =
Thus, a supernova four light years away would produce a penetration 1.99% of its expelled mass, which is around the distance of the closest star to the Sun. One twenty five light years away would penetrate .159% of its expelled matter, while one a hundred light years away would only penetrate .0032%. As the table below shows stars must be relatively near and massive to have a significant impact on spreading mass to nearby systems. The average stellar mass is only .5 a solar mass so
4ly - 1.99% 25ly - .159% 100ly - .0032%
10SM .199 SM 208.4 JpM .0159 SM 16.7 JpM .00032 SM .335 JpM
20SM .398 SM 416.9 JpM .0318 SM 33.3 JpM .00064 SM .67 JpM
30SM .597 SM 625.3 JpM .0477 SM 50.1 JpM .00096 SM 1.005 JpM
40SM .796 SM 833.7 JpM .0636 SM 66.6 JpM .00128 SM 1.34 JpM
that calculation does not take in the fact that things are usually spinning at a quick speed, making most of the matter that is expelled to line along a type of horizon. caused by centrifugal force.
that calculation does not take in the fact that things are usually spinning at a quick speed, making
you are talking to someone who studied astrophysics....and no thats not how supernovas work...you are thinking neutron stars AFTER explosion...and they emit gamma rays not particles..its literally a BOOM in all directions created by core (spherical object) collapsing on self so in all directions uniformly because we are talking plasma and gas...not solids, so yes it is uniform..there are no chunks in gas
you are talking to someone who studied astrophysics....and no thats not how supernovas work...you ar
the only impediment is stuff around it...you can look at pics of any nebula formed by supernova...crab nebula would be first to look at, pretty uniform expansion....still wont get to another star system for hundreds of thousands of years and then only a trace amount of anything heavier than lithium.
to produce the earth there would have had to been several nearby supernova...maybe 40 or more but that just goes into problems with solar system...planets flipped over on axis of rotation, our moon being less dense and bigger than should be and exact distance to create eclipses...they try to explain this by collision theories...but nope, most would be knocked out of orbits and not in same plane
the only impediment is stuff around it...you can look at pics of any nebula formed by supernova...cr
the crab nepu;a is the thing i was talking about. look how dense some of those areas are. as well as being made of a smaller nova then waht would have formed our galaxy, as well as being much younger.
the crab nepu;a is the thing i was talking about. look how dense some of those areas are. as well as
it was a supernova that formed that...supernovae did not form galaxy. It is random oval distribution of gas...there is no polarity there that heavy elements supposedly formed go in one direction as you implied.
it was a supernova that formed that...supernovae did not form galaxy. It is random oval distributio
also...whats the length of that nebula...is it even close enough to impact nearby stars?...the farther away they are, even 4 light years, only 2% of ALL matter ejected gets in that new star's range
also...whats the length of that nebula...is it even close enough to impact nearby stars?...the farth
LOlz...this was just a notes thing for thought problems. Wonder if you even know what I am talking about...what the problem was, supernova could not seed nearby stars with enough matter to create anything over 2% above hydrogen/helium/lithium in current model. I dont think this is enough to create solid planets with majority element higher than lithium, but being the intellect you are...I'm sure that escaped you and you have explanation how it could occur....DOI...the charts are a pit unreadable as it turned pi into ?
LOlz...this was just a notes thing for thought problems. Wonder if you even know what I am talking
2% of a supernova explosion is a LOT of heavy atoms. Chemically active atoms, at that. Why wouldn't they coalesce over time? Handwaving because 'you don't think so' is not any sort of evidence at all, particularly in the face of being able to find examples of the process at various stages of completion around young stars. And yes, this is a -successful- prediction of an observational science; the proposals for various versions of solar system creation were made before we had telescopes that good. Laplace's nebular collapse turned out to be the correct direction.
2% of a supernova explosion is a LOT of heavy atoms. Chemically active atoms, at that. Why wouldn't
Sure it is, but you are assuming they are all heavier than helium atoms, assuming they formed. However, most stellar systems have 2% higher than that, not including core of star, so MUCH higher percentage. Also the supernova would have to be 4 light years away to deposit that even that much in whole nebula. 5 light years drops 20%. Also at 4 light years it would put 5 billion joules of force on every projected square meter, totally dispersing any forming nebula. Do ya see the problems?
Sure it is, but you are assuming they are all heavier than helium atoms, assuming they formed. Howe
The main problem I see is your mental functioning...
A) The 2% IS all heavier material, doofus. And why would you not count the star when figuring out where everything went in the new solar system? B) What makes you think there's only one supernova involved? Look at the number of high-mass stars in the Orion nebula. The last supernova before the solar system formation is the one that triggers the collapse, not the only one that's seeded the area. C) Yes, supernovae blow bubbles in nebulae up to several light years in diameter. Beyond that, the displaced material is compressed.
The main problem I see is your mental functioning... A) The 2% IS all heavier material, doofus. And
a. the 2% is ALL ejecta from supernova, including H and He...our solar system needs 2% heavier material from supernova. b. it has to be close by to get up to that 2% heavy element as this shows, it falls exponentially with distance to negliable more than 10 light years away, but supernova that close would rip any nebula apart and disburse them. Or don't you understand the math put forward here? c. Beyond that the displaced material is variefied yet average distance of stars is about 7 light years in outer galaxy and 2 light years in core.
but do appreciate questioning my mental process.
a. the 2% is ALL ejecta from supernova, including H and He...our solar system needs 2% heavier mater
notice another unanswered series of questions...supernova must be very close to all known forming stars several light years, but such explosions would totally disrupt them. Avg distance is 2 light years in core galaxy and 6-7 light years where we are. So there must of been massive stars everywhere to account for heavier atom stars which are 95% of stars now.
notice another unanswered series of questions...supernova must be very close to all known forming st
Totally unwarranted assumption, here. You're making a straw man argument.
Star formation occurs in nebulae, according to the hypothesis. Large stars form faster, since there's greater gravity, and they also burn out more quickly and seed the nebular mass with heavy elements. Some small stars are disrupted if they're near a supernova, but ones farther out are triggered and form with heavier elements mixed in. Supernova explosions also disrupt the cloud in general and over time the smaller longer-lived stars and their associated planets drift off independently. Rinse and repeat over several billion years, and the younger the solar system, the more heavy stuff is in it. They -are- still forming, after all. It wasn't a once and done thing. Sol is only about 40% as old as the universe by current estimates, so there was plenty of time to seed the whole galaxy with (astrophysics usage) metals.
Totally unwarranted assumption, here. You're making a straw man argument. Star formation occurs in
It's not a straw man, because you apparently do not know what that means. Heavy material stars account for 95% of stars in galaxy, That material according to current theory can only be produced by supernovae. Therefore, the part you did not intuit, although implied, is there must have been a corresponding number of previous supernova to account for the "heavy" stars. In the outer galaxy that means 1 existing black hole or neutron star an average of about 14 light years distance and inner galaxy 4 light years from any star. There is an extreme lack of this evidence.
also notice how you dismiss all the objections as propaganda...aint that conveniently sticking your head in the sand
It's not a straw man, because you apparently do not know what that means. Heavy material stars acco
Most supernovae result in white dwarfs or neutron stars, predominantly the former. Most of the mass is blown clear in the supernova explosion, leaving only a small fraction of the star to do the final collapse Black holes are very rarely formed in the process, and in fact most recent supernovae remnants have a white dwarf at their centers (Crab and Ring Nebulae, famously so).
Unfortunately for your scenario, there ARE a lot of white dwarfs out there - 10% of nearby stars, in fact. Five of them within 16 lightyears, so we're actually on track for your estimate of 14 ly separation for local stars. This is actually a confirmed prediction.
Most supernovae result in white dwarfs or neutron stars, predominantly the former. Most of the mass
You are wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Supernova always result in neutron stars or black holes due to mass, and no, its all core mass, which is a great percentage of mass of star or gets sucked back due to gravity....and no the most recent supernova is 700 light years away and neutron star. You CLEARLY dont know what you are talking about.
White dwarfs come from star masses like OUR star, which do not fuse elements to heavier ones. They form nebula from slowly ejecting gases in ejections. You clearly know NOTHING about star evolution. Try again, when you read up on this. Nearest known neutron star is 250ly best guess and nearest known black hole is 3000 ly....so where did all the heavier elements come from? Guess you will stick your head in sand, fingers in ears and LALALA its all creationist propaganda that doesnt exist...right? I can totally call you a fool for saying false facts.
Actually u know the funny thing, I approached the leading creationist organization with all this info several years ago. Their response, we dont take outside info. Maybe cuz of copyright?
You are wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Supernova always result in neutron sta
Creationists? Maybe because that crowd is scared of learning something that contradicts The Bible. (see also: Reality)
Whether you believe me or not, models and observations agree that most supernovae blow enough mass loose that the core remnant is usually within the Chandrasekhar Limit. Crab Nebula has a white dwarf at the center. Ring Nebula has a white dwarf at the center. So do most of the others that are recent enough that we know where to look to find the center. Estimates are that it would require a star of 8-10 solar mass to reliably leave a neutron star remnant, and probably at least 12 to make a black hole possible - and both neutron stars and black holes are dim enough that we can only detect them by gravitational influence or if they're sucking in matter.
Creationists? Maybe because that crowd is scared of learning something that contradicts The Bible. (
And no...I showed YOU there would have to neutron stars or black holes 14 light years from every star in outer galaxy...or did you miss...how did you show me anything...when nearest supernova to our star is 300 ly away...so NO WAY DID THAT ENRICH ALL STARS with heavy elements...YOUR THEORY FAILS RIGHT THERE...but love the spin.
Sorry you are stupid...crab nebula 700 light years away HAS A PULSAR in it, aka a neutron star... STOP LYING AND MAKING SHIT UP. comforts how little you know but think you do. FOOL I am just gonna call your blatant lies out as you are a FOOL
And no...I showed YOU there would have to neutron stars or black holes 14 light years from every sta
No, you made a ridiculous claim that there would have to be that many neutron stars. You did nothing to -prove- that claim.
Hmm. Misremembered the Crab. You're right, it is a young neutron star, which we can see because it's still very young, relatively close, and has the nebula to direct our attention to it. It is also, as I stated, believed to be from an original star around 10 solar masses of which only 2 solar masses remain in the pulsar. Doesn't change that most smaller supernovae and novae produce white dwarf remnants, which we do see in the numbers you stated.
And no, young earth creationism (as opposed to divine creation of an old universe) aka biblical literalism, does NOT agree with the observed universe. Completely fails just on age, since the literalists can never seem to stretch it back more than 20,000 years and most of them won't even go that long.
No, you made a ridiculous claim that there would have to be that many neutron stars. You did nothing
There would have to a supernova in every local group of stars to provide the heavy elements that occur in 95% of stars as father than 4 light years away, you rapidly lose the 2% of heavy elements they are composed of. There should be an abundance of neutron stars AND black holes. Neither of which go away. And as stated, the closest neutron star is 250 light years away, which would have seeded our star an insignificant amount of heavy elements. Far less the 2%. It is a failed theory.
There would have to a supernova in every local group of stars to provide the heavy elements that occ
You -really- need to look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
A) You can't -see- neutron stars once their explosion nebula has dispersed, even if you needed them rather than white dwarfs. B) You only need a couple in a given region once in a long while, even if your scenario is accurate. Things -move-, you do realize? After five billion years (roughly 25 times around the galactic core on a chaotic merry-go-round 'orbit') the original source of -our- heavy elements could be almost anywhere, and the ones we do see close up may or may not have been the ones involved. C) It works in both directions. The stuff doesn't vanish, after all. Heavy elements that aren't incorporated into new systems next to the explosion continue drifting out to contaminate the rest of the cloud. Add them to the leftovers from other incidents, and you get a nice dispersal of heavies after a while. You keep leaving deep time out of your scenarios.
You -really- need to look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect. A) You can't -see- neutron stars once their
Apparently you have forgotten I already said I knew what it is, fool, but thanks for the implied insult, twice. You are a sad person. A. You apparently havent heard of radio telescopy B. Their would still have to be neutron stars and black holes EVERYWHERE, so far nearest is 250 light years away. C. You clearly do not understand what I am saying, but citing deep time as a cover for explaining things you cant explain is typically how evolutionists work. Oh well theres billions of years, anything could happen. No, No it cant.
Apparently you have forgotten I already said I knew what it is, fool, but thanks for the implied ins
Your failure to make sense is not because I don't understand you. I -do- understand what you're saying. It is, unfortunately, not -accurate-.
And once again, telescopes can't detect something that isn't giving off significant amounts of radiation, be it gamma, X, visible, or radio. Neutron stars and black holes are only detectable when they're interacting with other matter, and their own formation nebulae don't last long on the astronomic scale. How do you expect to see them when they're more than a million years old?
Your failure to make sense is not because I don't understand you. I -do- understand what you're sayi
You do know black holes and neutron stars have massive electric and magnetic fields that give off radio signals? That's how we first detected them when tech was primitive. Them interacting with other matter either means explosions or very high energy in gamma radiation effects. They dont have formation nebula, because its a supernova and explodes for several light years. Because they are still there, massive rotating electric and magnetic fields around them that produce radio waves. Sorry you dont understand this, but you accuse YOU not knowing how black holes and neutron stars operate to my not making sense...AGAIN YOU BLAME ME for you not understanding what I am saying.
how bout we get back to how bacteria can in no way biochemically turn into eukaryotes...still dont even know if you know what eukaryotes are?
You realize you have literally abandoned all defense of your argument against my book, at this point, and dismissed everything as propaganda, no cogent argument against all my research....and doubling down on this one thing which was just a thought experiment. How bout that if big bang happened, which it could not, the universe would immediately form a black hole and get sucked into singularity? or that no explanation of matter to antimatter ratio? or far too uniform background radiation? etc....you ignore all these points to choose 1 single argument you fail to defend.
You are stupid and we are more stupid for listening to you. XD BTW have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect? I am totally a victim of it, as I expect stupid people to be as smart as me and see overwhelming evidence and not go, NUH UH DOI, I KNOWS BETTER CUZ PEOPLE TAUGHT ME TO THINK THIS WAY AND NEVER QUESTION THEM, DOI! that is how you sound. Have you ever had a single original scientific thought ever? Ever?
You do know black holes and neutron stars have massive electric and magnetic fields that give off ra
Magnetic fields yes, electric fields not so much. And yes, spinning magnetic fields do give off radiation. In tight beams. Which we do detect as pulsars. But that's a small fraction of the ones that are out there. We have had at least one pulsar drift out of alignment since we discovered it, remember reading the article somewhere, presumably due to precession. Just got weaker and weaker and went below threshhold of detection.
And yes, supernovae form nebulae when they explode. As witness the Crab that we were just discussing.
You haven't presented any research, btw. Just journal-mining, strawman construction and deconstruction, and argument by incredulity. What original research have you done, and what were the findings?
Magnetic fields yes, electric fields not so much. And yes, spinning magnetic fields do give off radi
You do know there's alt science that electric fields dominate universe...being 50 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. And no...they give off particles in tight pulsar streams...they still have intense magnetic and electric fields.
So I have done no research....except the 500 page book with citations which you say is just propaganga...from creationist sites...so why would I approach them, saying, you missed this bitches...You dont know straw man argument means, stop using it as a means to deflect...and im doing this from memory when drunk...is a deflection from actual argument to one that lesser in quality that can be easily disproven...YOU ARE ONE DOING THAT.
So...tell me how bacteria turned into eukaryotes several different times in several different ways with same basic plan. I keep saying plan...BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS PLANNED..
I'm sorry when I look at everything, biology, cosmology, etc...the evidence says its planned...its just a matter of who planned it. I am sorry you are too stupid to understand this...dunning-kruger effect LOLZ
you going to anthrocon?
You do know there's alt science that electric fields dominate universe...being 50 orders of magnitud
Depends on how you mean 'dominate'. EM fields do have both repulsive and attractive effects, so at universe-spanning scales they tend to cancel. Local effects, definitely, possibly as wide as galaxies. This is relevant how?
Writing a book is not research. Looking up citations for a book is not research to anyone but a particularly thick-headed English teacher. Deciding that things 'look planned' and attempting to laugh at anyone who disagrees with you is not research, it's a classic argument from incredulity. So again, what variety of scientific research have you done? What was your hypothesis, what were your findings, and where did you present it in your book? I seem to have overlooked it.
Depends on how you mean 'dominate'. EM fields do have both repulsive and attractive effects, so at u
Again...you show you dont know what I am talking about. EM fields are 50 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. that 50 0's....s0 let me spell it out for you...EM fields are 50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 x stronger than gravity...and EM fields around black holes and neutron stars have those fields amplified and condensed so much that they rip particles off the neutron star to do pulsars off poles ...
so its not local.
You are idiot...writing a book and looking up citations *IS* research...as in I researched this topic, and showed citations for that research. This is crux. We all agree life is designed. Its a FACT. We should agree universe is designed as well. ITS A FACT. It doesnt look planned, it *IS*. THis is the point you are missing. Its only who planned it, is the question. You believe a magic cell formed, which you cant explain, then that formed all bacteria...and then magically transformed into eukaryotes....no explanation how several different times...then all life formed from that...land vertebrates turned into all boney land life...all based off 1 plan of 4 limbed 5 digit creatures with same anatomy...in 4 distinct ways...and the most fishlike is most like mammals in embryos and bird and reptiles are most like in embryos, but mammals and birds are most alike in function, aka warm blooded, cuz the creator laughs at you.,...also we have shark genes for internal birth...cuz god can pick and choose and evolution cant. See how I claimed original things?
I'll leave with a statement I made at half your age. Chimp DNA is not 98% the same, only the protein coding ones (14% of DNA)...so our proteins are the same, but we are 50% banana by same logic...Chimp DNA is 10% larger than human and visual differences in sizes...our Y chromosome is much larger than chimp. THis is stupid why they look different. Should be obvious this is a blatant lie to support a crap theory. They ignore the differences of 86% of DNA to make that claim...see how twisted your theory is to support its bogus claims. SO thats 1 claim I made..this is all in book YOU DIDNT READ!
sorry you didnt read it, to see the many many other claims I made. FOOL. maybe read it, and see what I said.
Again...you show you dont know what I am talking about. EM fields are 50 orders of magnitude strong
also altho their origin theories are BS also...totally listening to electric field theory guys on things....how our planet and sun interact...and the possibility of repeated point craters on planetary bodies...and even the huge linear canyons carved out on mars....this is way out of spectrum theories...so you will totally dismiss. I came to light to it several years ago in regards to comet behavior...then my roommate from a few years mentioned it..and I was like., WTF you shouldnt know about that. He told me his teacher in HS told them it, as ex NASA scientist in Florida....I was JAW DROP....it was fringe theory as far as I knew. Sadly I think they have a lot of good points, but marred by weird origins theories.
Btw funny thing, same roommate, I was talking about a historical theory of mine, that there was war around 1500BC-1000 BC between humans and cannibal giants according to bible and all history...mainly from crete who were monolithic stone bulding people....we kicked them out and they went to america. yay...built mounds in ohio where professors dug up 7-9 foot tall skeletons which have been disappearred....soutrean hypothesis. DNA in canada showing they were european. EYE witness accounts on recordings saying they killed last giants in new mexico by indians. Roommate said yeah like attack on titan...wut?
also altho their origin theories are BS also...totally listening to electric field theory guys on th
Also no....creationism generally agrees with universe...it was probably a copyright issue they cant take ideas from people outside their group...same reason marvel wont take stories.
Also no....creationism generally agrees with universe...it was probably a copyright issue they cant
Okay, once more. Try to keep up. Yes, EM strengths are between 10^20 and 10^50 times stronger than gravity, depending on how you try to define it. (Low end is field strengths in standard units, high end is gravity vs. electric force on a pair of electrons). But electromagnetics have both repulsive and attractive effects. This is why they are important locally but tend to cancel out over large distances. Gravity is always attractive, so it dominates at astronomically long ranges.
We do not agree that life looks designed. Too much kludge and wobble and obvious legacy carryovers of stuff that could easily be improved on, in my opinion. (For example: Why do bats not have the much improved avian respiratory system, but ground birds do?) You have no proof of this claim besides your own feelings, which do not count. As I said before, this is the classic version of the logical fallacy of argument by incredulity. 'I don't believe it, so it didn't happen.' I remain unimpressed.
I do not believe a first cell 'magically formed'. I consider the question unresolved, pending additional research in biochemistry, and do not demand an answer at this point. Your claim has no proof or biochemistry behind it, so is disregarded.
You claim not to be a creationist, yet you quote gibberish stats about DNA overlap taken straight from their tracts.
You have done no scientific research, but persist in conflating 'research' as defined by high school English teachers assigning term papers with 'research' as done by actual scientists investigating reality. This is the fallacy of equivocation, where you switch the definition of a word in midstream to claim that the other party means something they do not.
You have now trotted out 'giants in the Earth' rubbish and conspiracy theories - btw, if they are giants, how would you know their DNA was European? Certainly wouldn't be standard human. And how would the DNA even have been checked, since the bones disappeared before DNA analysis was a thing? I read the same stuff as a kid, giants and bones and They Mysteriously Vanished, back in the 60's.
I'll let you have the last word, since I'm sure you will say something else stupid. I'm done wasting lifespan on you.
Okay, once more. Try to keep up. Yes, EM strengths are between 10^20 and 10^50 times stronger than g
You are idiot. I am not defining anything...electromagnatic force is 50 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity...YOU IDIOT..you can test this yourself...a small magnet can counteract the force of gravity...DOI!@///...and no you dont know what you are talking about. Gravity is ONLY important with large masses.
Glad you remain unimpressed, because you are stupid. This only shows your own ignorance, comparing bats to birds. I'm drunk and remembering things...but birds whole circulatory system is odd. Not to mention their skeleton is designed to make them light weight...and then I barely remember this....but its designed for high circulation, bumping blood quickly...Im sure I said it better it book...rather than reptile heptatic pump or mammal dual method.
Dear dear poor sad fool...you cant say things are unresolved...and yeah we will find the answer in another 100 yrs...after 160 yrs...its just not science...poor sad fool...you are believing in creation story mythos...when do you suppose we will know the answers? or just BELIEVE...into that cult....do you even grasp that you are part of a cult? yeah I disreguard it too...that you have no evidence or explanation of how first cell happened. (because its biochemically impossible)
NO I do think the most plausible explanation is an extradimensional creator did it....did not take any info from "tracts" sorry if you dismiss science as tracts
transitive verb 1 : to search or investigate exhaustively ...thats definition...so yeah...cited study on topic...so no defined by dictionary. So tell me how I refined word?
Because they had mixed european ancestry...they f*d european women...its in ALL the myths... Goliath in Bible. Maximum Rex was a giant roman emperor in 200s AD.,,they said he could outrun a horse. +15mph...You can look it up...was going to post it, put apparently multiple DNA discoveries. They disappeared the 7-9 foot skeletons back in the 1800s...but there are pics of ivy league professors digging this up in newspapers with photos...which you can still see online...DOI....the DNA thing came about when indians in canada tried to claim a skeleton, so they did test to see which tribe...and nope european from supposed 10k years ago.
I feel same...you wanna believe in your creation mythos. The odd thing is I, although I believe it correct at the moment, you probably believe in your mythos story more than I do. How does that make you feel? When it could not happen. Big bang would have collapsed in black hole IMMEDIATELY...life could not formed and bacteria could not turn into eukaryotes due to laws of biochemistry...but YOU BELIEVE THEY DID>..just stupid
You are idiot. I am not defining anything...electromagnatic force is 50 orders of magnitude stronge
