Real Science Radio: List of Evidence Against the Big Bang
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
The Peizo electric effect.
The same thing you light yer barbeque with.
When quartz is struck it makes an electric discharge.
Walt thinks that this effect cooked all the radioactivity up during the thickining of the continents while they were rapidly spreading apart during the eruption of the subteraianin chamber as the pillars of the deep were collapsing.
I'm sure I have mangled that a bit but that's the jist.
Good thing we have Stipe here to fill in the details, he's kinda the resident expert.
Actually, I prefer you morons to do your own homework. :up:
Atheists are continually bleating about the primacy of science, but when presented with a scientific idea they run for the hill.
Which particular scientific idea would that be? A 6000 year old universe? Sorry, that particular hill was leveled long ago. If you did your own homework instead of relying on Pastor Bob and Dr. Brown for your science education you would know that. Once again we sorely miss that broken irony meter.
The challenge stands. Anyone who can find a substantive and on-topic response in any thread by Joke.
Anyone?
Which I've obviously done as demonstrated in my above post.
Get up on the wrong side of the bed mate?
Which I haven't done as demonstrated by this my above post.
I took the time to fill the guy in on the basics of the theory that you espouse. Just to try to move the conversation along.
None of us have to be here.
For gcthomas;
Here's a search for Walt Brown at kgov;
http://kgov.com/search/node/walt brown
The top four listed are Walt Brown on Bob's show in Jan 07.
You can download the mp3s for free.
That will give you a two hour primer on all things Walt Brown that you can listen to while you're doing other things.
gcthomas
New member
To save you some effort, try googling hydrothermal vents, granitic intrusions, laterites and placer deposits. They are well known because mining companies use that knowledge to work out where to go prospecting.
Do mining or oil companies ever use Dr. Brown's theory? anyone know???
No, you haven't. You've read a few paragraphs and think you're justified now in your mockery.
Processes that concentrated gold in these places.
gcthomas
New member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_genesis#Ore_genesis_processes
Although I'm sure you could have found the info yourself.
Point is, Walt Brown's objections are for rhetorical effect only, since they are not genuine problems requiring the Walt Brown Snake Oil for their solution.
Expected
What objections?
Frayed Knot
New member
Wow - Walt's more of an idiot than I realized.
Piezoelectricity causing radioactivity? How does he dream this stuff up?
gcthomas
New member
OP said:
The quote is from a news story, and is not a quote from an astronomer or astrophysicist. Rather it is a phrase from a journalist. Far from expecting to see 'plenty' of Pop III stars, no-one expects to see many at all, especially in the Milky Way, as modern simulations of their formations predict that they would all have been giant stars that died young. The linked references are all pre-simulation 1980s pieces.
The best that is hoped for is to pick out a spectral signature in extremely faint and distant (redshift~3) galaxies.
Science fail, for being thirty years behind the times. :down:
gcthomas
New member
OP said:
Evolutionists (biologists!) ought to keep away from making predictions about explained orbits, and leave it to the astrophysicists!
PS. Unless [whisper] Bob and co really don't know what the word 'evolutionist' means! [/whisper]
PPS. It is unlikely anyone ever made that prediction anyway, on the basis of a sample size of one. It is noticable that there is no reference for this particular claim.
Idiot? Really? Is that the path you're going to take?
From lots of research, apparently. Something evolutionists are highly averse to if it might challenge their comfort.
Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale. To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 353 and Figures 183 and 192, and 188–190.
-source.
“It will be shown that the observations of near-ground AGR following lightning are consistent with the production and subsequent decay of a combination of atmospheric radioisotopes with 10–100 minute half-lives produced via nuclear reactions on the more abundant elements in the atmosphere.”
Molten Earth?
For decades, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment. If so, the heat released by impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over. Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements, such as gold, would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface.
Even granite, the basic continental rock, is a mixture of many minerals with varying densities. If melted granite slowly cooled, a “layer cake” of minerals, vertically sorted by density and freezing temperature, would form instead of granite. Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.
Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed billions of years ago when, according to evolutionists, the Earth should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.
Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases, such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has. If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body.
For decades, textbooks have taught that the early Earth was molten for 500,000,000 years, because it formed by meteoritic bombardment. If so, the heat released by impacts would have melted the entire Earth many times over. Had Earth ever been molten, dense, nonreactive chemical elements, such as gold, would have sunk to Earth’s core. Gold is 70% denser than lead, yet is found at the Earth’s surface.
Even granite, the basic continental rock, is a mixture of many minerals with varying densities. If melted granite slowly cooled, a “layer cake” of minerals, vertically sorted by density and freezing temperature, would form instead of granite. Therefore, the entire Earth was never molten and did not form by meteoritic bombardment.
Radioactive dating of certain zircon minerals also contradicts a molten Earth. Trace elements within those zircons show that the zircons formed on a cold Earth (less than 212°F). However, based on radioactive dating, those zircons formed billions of years ago when, according to evolutionists, the Earth should have been molten (exceeding 1,800°F)—an obvious contradiction. Either the molten Earth idea or the radioactive dating method must be wrong; perhaps both are wrong.
Meteorites contain much more of the element xenon than Earth’s surface rocks, relative to other noble (inert) gases, such as helium, neon, and argon. Had Earth formed by meteoritic bombardment, Earth’s surface rocks would have a different composition, and our atmosphere would contain up to ten times more xenon than it has. If Earth did not evolve by meteoritic bombardment, it may have begun as one large body.
-source.
gcthomas
New member
But the links don't refer to any specific evidence, which is something that creation scientists seem rather averse to.
Calcs and other evidence is where, exactly? Do we have to take it on trust?
Lightning? I thought the idea was earthquakes!
The only source I can find for the half billion year period is all over the creationist sites.
Crystalline gold IS denser, but we are talking about atomic gold forced into interstices within minerals, where relying naively on bulk densities is not reliable. Gold atoms get forced out of the mantle minerals and into the crust with other elements that fit better in silicate minerals with their looser crystal spacings.
Granite IS usually differentiated vertically by density, while lack of time and convection can prevent complete differentiation. I was taught this in high school.
It is the YEC characterisation of the molten Earth idea that is wrong. The zircon ages are consistent with some surface water two to three hundred million years after formation of the Earth, early in the late bombardment period. Evidently, any hypothetical subsequent remelting did not destroy the zircon.
Xenon can form covalent chemical bonds, unlike argon, and so much will be bound up with oxygen in silicates. There would have to be a careful assay of the amount of terrestrial xenon to be sure that the amount of atmospheric xenon was too low, along with careful modelling of how the xenon was distributed in the early solar system at it warmed up. This will likely be solved, so this problem will go away like the solar neutrino 'problem' did.
Not a big issue.
gcthomas
New member
OP said:
The linked explanation of Walt's has this:
Simulations work fine, because Walt's objection is a naive one, as usual. As the clouds collapse, collisions between atoms and molecules cause their potential or rotational energy to increase, which is then lost by the emission of photons of light. This cools the gas so it can continue to collapse.
Any introductory course would uncover all this, as would even a cursory literature review.
They're called books. You read them. :up:
That's because you're completely disinterested in understanding an alternative idea.
:mock: GC's search ability.
Yeah, we know. That's what I just said. :chuckle:
Evidently.
Meteors added the crust of the Earth and it didn't start off melted. That's your story now, right?
:chuckle:
In the meantime, want to read up on the theory that doesn't require so many things to be explained away?