Real Science Radio: List of Evidence Against the Big Bang

[Jukia]

Actually, yes I do. Christian, remember?

What a man says in response to Christ is the most important thing about him.

Luckily for me the message of Jesus Christ is very simple and easily summed up in just a few short sentences no matter what angle you approach it from.

And it is also a snare to the proud and haughty.

You are undoubtedly very conceited and proud. You have far too much invested in your supposed wisdom and knowledge. I guarantee you will get very little right when asked what the gospel is.

Since you seem to get your theology ala Pastor Bob and your science ala Dr. Brown and are the smiley king as well as being so sure of yourself that you know you know more than I, I think I will pass.

Actually, if you bothered to engage in any rational conversation I might do otherwise, but---Nah.

 

[Nitro]

What would you know of the message of Christ? :loser:

Ah, Stripey, you really don't want to go there. I will leave you in your ignorance.

Actually, yes I do. Christian, remember?

What a man says in response to Christ is the most important thing about him.

Luckily for me the message of Jesus Christ is very simple and easily summed up in just a few short sentences no matter what angle you approach it from.

And it is also a snare to the proud and haughty.

You are undoubtedly very conceited and proud. You have far too much invested in your supposed wisdom and knowledge. I guarantee you will get very little right when asked what the gospel is.

Since you seem to get your theology ala Pastor Bob and your science ala Dr. Brown and are the smiley king as well as being so sure of yourself that you know you know more than I, I think I will pass.

Actually, if you bothered to engage in any rational conversation I might do otherwise, but---Nah.

Unbelievable. Now you just look like a fool.

 

[Stripe]

Since you seem to get your theology ala Pastor Bob and your science ala Dr. Brown and are the smiley king as well as being so sure of yourself that you know you know more than I, I think I will pass. Actually, if you bothered to engage in any rational conversation I might do otherwise, but---Nah.

Figures.

Run and hide, little man. :loser:

Unbelievable. Now you just look like a fool.

There's a good reason for that.

 

[Jukia]

Unbelievable. Now you just look like a fool.

I look like a fool yet Stripe gets his version of Christianity from Enyart's particular reading of the Gospel and even better his science from Walt Brown? Okey dokey.

 

[gcthomas]

Back at the OP ...

Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity: : Theory claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars, but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution throughout the Earth's crust. However, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement on air that ninety percent of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is concentrated in the continental crust!

The mantle is made of high density minerals, so the uranic, lithophylic minerals were largely restricted to the crust. The oceanlc crust is derived from the mantle, so has less uranium etc. than the continental crust. Hardly rocket science.

Walt's version is that lightning causes nuclear reactions which make atoms radioactive, but such reactions would have been seen by know. You need more than lightning to explain radioactivity.

Stripey, you should know that the geological explanation is valid, shouldn't you?

 

[Stripe]

The mantle is made of high density minerals, so the uranic, lithophylic minerals were largely restricted to the crust. The oceanlc crust is derived from the mantle, so has less uranium etc. than the continental crust. Hardly rocket science.

Do you not hold to the accretion model of planetary formation?

Walt's version is that lightning causes nuclear reactions which make atoms radioactive, but such reactions would have been seen by know. You need more than lightning to explain radioactivity.

Lightning?

What are you talking about?

Stripey, you should know that the geological explanation is valid, shouldn't you?

Of course the geological explanation is correct. Were you interested in a discussion about what the geological (read: correct) explanation is?

 

[gcthomas]

Do you not hold to the accretion model of planetary formation?

Naturally. What did you expect?

Lightning?

Sorry - earthquakes. Wrong wrong theory.

Of course the geological explanation is correct. Were you interested in a discussion about what the geological (read: correct) explanation is?

Geological theory, as opposed to The Walt Brown Wonderful Magical Theory of Everything.

 

[Stripe]

Naturally. What did you expect?

An explanation for how radioactivity became restricted to above the mantle. :up:

Sorry - earthquakes.

Uh, yeah. No. :nono:

Next time you want to mock an idea, make sure and read it first. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

An explanation for how radioactivity became restricted to above the mantle. :up:

Uh, yeah. No. :nono:

Next time you want to mock an idea, make sure and read it first. :up:

The mantle is made of high density minerals, so the uranic, lithophylic minerals were largely restricted to the crust. The oceanlc crust is derived from the mantle, so has less uranium etc. than the continental crust. Hardly rocket science.

 

[Stripe]

The mantle is made of high density minerals, so the uranic, lithophylic minerals were largely restricted to the crust. The oceanlc crust is derived from the mantle, so has less uranium etc. than the continental crust. Hardly rocket science.

Why were there no radioactive materials delivered to the core and mantle during the accretion of Earth?

 

[xAvarice]

Wrong wrong theory.

Haha! I love these threads, I'm quite partial to shovelling male cow manure, but you seem to have a special ability for dealing with it.

$25... ouch, you guys are getting monetised real good.

 

[gcthomas]

Why were there no radioactive materials delivered to the core and mantle during the accretion of Earth?

There was no core or mantle initially - they formed over a period if time by a process of differentiation. The dense iron and similar elements of low radioactivity decended under gravity to form a core.

The less dense and more radioactive potassium rose to the new crust. Uranium and thorium have ion sizes that do not fit well with the magnesium based minerals of the mantle, so they fit better in the open structures of the silicate minerals of the crust, where they become concentrated.

The upshot is that standard planetary differentiation processes have concentrated the radioactive elements near the surface of the planet.

 

[Stripe]

There was no core or mantle initially - they formed over a period if time by a process of differentiation. The dense iron and similar elements of low radioactivity decended under gravity to form a core. The less dense and more radioactive potassium rose to the new crust. Uranium and thorium have ion sizes that do not fit well with the magnesium based minerals of the mantle, so they fit better in the open structures of the silicate minerals of the crust, where they become concentrated. The upshot is that standard planetary differentiation processes have concentrated the radioactive elements near the surface of the planet.

OK. This doesn't seem very plausible to me.

If there was accretion then the addition of material should be pretty standard in terms of type and rate. If the same stuff is getting added all the time then the distribution of radioactive material should be even throughout the Earth.

In fact, this is what was supposed before the new evidence came in.

 

[gcthomas]

OK. This doesn't seem very plausible to me.

If there was accretion then the addition of material should be pretty standard in terms of type and rate. If the same stuff is getting added all the time then the distribution of radioactive material should be even throughout the Earth.

In fact, this is what was supposed before the new evidence came in.

Why implausible? We know that the Earth is layered, with the dense iron in the middle and the silicates on the outside. That could easily have happened in the 10 million years after accretion while the Earth was still liquid. The chemical properties of the Th, U and K is well understood, and their proportions matches asteroid compositions quite well. The heat output from these materials, along with that calculated for gravitational heating and the remnant primordial heat from accretion, matches reasonably well the heat flow that is measured from the surface.

It is entirely plausible, explains observations in terms of what was already known, and does not require Brown's novel, unlikely and untested nucleosynthesis by earthquakes.

That Bob and Walt are amazed that Th, U, K are unevenly distributed in the Earth's crust, but don't seem amazed that silicon (continental crust) and magnesium (oceanic crust) are unevenly distributed for the same reason, says much about how confused they are about the Earth's current structure, let alone its formation processes.

 

[Stripe]

Why implausible?

For the reasons I just gave. :AMR:

We know that the Earth is layered, with the dense iron in the middle and the silicates on the outside. That could easily have happened in the 10 million years after accretion while the Earth was still liquid.

The Earth was never liquid. Else we would not have stuff like gold at the surface.

The chemical properties of the Th, U and K is well understood, and their proportions matches asteroid compositions quite well.

Which can be explained two ways. Either the asteroids formed the Earth or the Earth formed the asteroids.

The heat output from these materials, along with that calculated for gravitational heating and the remnant primordial heat from accretion, matches reasonably well the heat flow that is measured from the surface.

Well, no. What you do is look at the heat flow and make conditions that might produce those numbers.

It is entirely plausible, explains observations in terms of what was already known, and does not require Brown's novel, unlikely and untested nucleosynthesis by earthquakes.

Anything but take an honest look at the alternative, right?

 

[gcthomas]

For the reasons I just gave. :AMR:

The Earth was never liquid. Else we would not have stuff like gold at the surface.

Which can be explained two ways. Either the asteroids formed the Earth or the Earth formed the asteroids.

Well, no. What you do is look at the heat flow and make conditions that might produce those numbers.

Anything but take an honest look at the alternative, right?

Origins for the gold are known: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2011/7885.html

I'd like to look at Walt's experimental evidence that earthquakes can cause changes in the atomic nuclei. If it were true, I'd expect to see large neutrino fluxes during earthquakes - have there been any? Can I see his experimental research into the plausibility of such unlikely processes?

 

[Stripe]

Origins for the gold are known: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2011/7885.html

No, they aren't. They just made up a late bombardment to explain what their model failed to predict.

And if gold were deposited by meteorites, it should be evenly distributed. Instead what we find is high concentrations of gold in very specific places.

I'd like to look at Walt's experimental evidence that earthquakes can cause changes in the atomic nuclei. If it were true, I'd expect to see large neutrino fluxes during earthquakes - have there been any? Can I see his experimental research into the plausibility of such unlikely processes?

Book's online for free. :up:

 

[Stripe]

:mock: xAvarest

 

[Sherman]

Haha! I love these threads, I'm quite partial to shovelling male cow manure, but you seem to have a special ability for dealing with it.

$25... ouch, you guys are getting monetised real good.

:troll:

 

[gcthomas]

No, they aren't. They just made up a late bombardment to explain what their model failed to predict.

Did you wonder why they made the measurements of the rungsten isotope ratios? There was a pre-existing hypothesis about the origin of gold from a late bombardment, and this research was carried out to test that theory. The theory made correct predictions -it was no ad hoc explanation, but falsifiability in action. The theory could have made a different prediction about the tungsten, but it didn't. It is now to be considered supported by experiment. Real science.

Does Walt make falsifiable predictions, or is it really a 'just so' story?

And if gold were deposited by meteorites, it should be evenly distributed. Instead what we find is high concentrations of gold in very specific places.

This was 3 1/2 billion years ago, so there has been a lot of time for crust mmaterial reprocessing. Gold is found in specific areas due to specific concentrating processes.

Book's online for free. :up:

No experimental nuclear physics at all, as far as I can see.