Big Bang or Big Flush?

[bystander]

I just read that Technetium has a half life of 2 million years .. "far shorter than the age and life expectancy of the stars in which we observe it." ('peculiar' Red Giants. To me this is another example that the current 'concensus' if there is one, supporting Big Bang and theorized ages of stars and universe, is based on supposition rather than observation.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Technetium stars are seen as evidence supporting the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis- in fact, their discovery provided the first direct evidence of the formation of heavy elements from lighter ones inside stars. There's really no connection between the BBT and the existence of technetium in stars.

If the age of the Red Giants has been measured accurately as astrophysicists say it has, and if the age of the universe has been measured accurately as it is said to have been, then there should be no technitium remaining in those Red Giants .. therefore, the ages have been measured wrong to a huge, huge, huge degree. Perhaps the universe is only 6,777 years old after all (just kidding about the last part of this post).

The techneticum is constantly being formed within the stars by fusion or neutrino bombardment. Just like helium is being formed from hydrogen within our own sun.

[Chris Peterson]

If the age of the Red Giants has been measured accurately as astrophysicists say it has, and if the age of the universe has been measured accurately as it is said to have been, then there should be no technitium remaining in those Red Giants .. therefore, the ages have been measured wrong to a huge, huge, huge degree. Perhaps the universe is only 6,777 years old after all (just kidding about the last part of this post).

The presence of technetium in no way argues that age estimates are incorrect. Why do you assume that the technetium had to be present when the star (or the Universe) began? Technetium is formed in stars by nuclear processes- both slow neutron capture as well as fission from heavier elements present from the beginning in higher metallicity stars. These are well understood processes. I've never heard anybody (except maybe for a few creation "science" sites, which of course are nothing but pseudoscience) argue that the presence of technetium in stars means they must be young.

Do you know that there are naturally occurring isotopes here on the Earth with half-lives of a few days? How do you explain that?

[apodman]

Do you know that there are naturally occurring isotopes here on the Earth with half-lives of a few days? How do you explain that?

Dunno. What percentage does cosmic ray spallation account for?

[Sputnick]

I just read that Technetium has a half life of 2 million years .. "far shorter than the age and life expectancy of the stars in which we observe it." ('peculiar' Red Giants. To me this is another example that the current 'concensus' if there is one, supporting Big Bang and theorized ages of stars and universe, is based on supposition rather than observation.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Technetium stars are seen as evidence supporting the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis- in fact, their discovery provided the first direct evidence of the formation of heavy elements from lighter ones inside stars. There's really no connection between the BBT and the existence of technetium in stars.

If the age of the Red Giants has been measured accurately as astrophysicists say it has, and if the age of the universe has been measured accurately as it is said to have been, then there should be no technitium remaining in those Red Giants .. therefore, the ages have been measured wrong to a huge, huge, huge degree. Perhaps the universe is only 6,777 years old after all (just kidding about the last part of this post).

The techneticum is constantly being formed within the stars by fusion or neutrino bombardment. Just like helium is being formed from hydrogen within our own sun.

According to what I read in origins the Tecnetium (Techneticum? I'll have to check that out) should have been burned up long, long ago.

[Chris Peterson]

According to what I read in origins the Tecnetium (Techneticum? I'll have to check that out) should have been burned up long, long ago.

Technetium. And the only technetium that decayed long ago was that which was made long ago. But it is being made all the time in some types of stars. I suggest you read up on nucleosynthesis, particularly the S-process (again, Wikipedia is your friend).

Technetium is no more an indicator of the age of the Universe than carbon-14 (half-life 5730 years) is of the age of the Earth.

[Sputnick]

According to what I read in origins the Tecnetium (Techneticum? I'll have to check that out) should have been burned up long, long ago.

Technetium. And the only technetium that decayed long ago was that which was made long ago. But it is being made all the time in some types of stars.

'Origins' by Tyson - 2004 - page 175 - "Astrophysicists also lack any known mechanism to create Technetium in a star's core and to have it dredge itself up to the surface where they observe it."
So - perhaps the Red Giant is not a billion years old or four billion or ten billion years old? (or the Technetium would have been exhausted long ago)?

I suggest you read up on nucleosynthesis, particularly the S-process (again, Wikipedia is your friend).

I've been doing considerable reading of books (8)in the past 10 days, all those books written by PHDs in astronomy or astrophysics, and all of them being in the consensus of Big Bang, yet all of them admitting there are huge voids which leave Big Bang a possibility only .. and all of them using Cosmic Background Radiation as evidence of Big Bang .. and all of them neglecting the fact that CBR may not originate from a source other than Big Bang (Catch 22 there) .. and only one of those books mentioning that stars (and therefore the universe) can be made from absolutely nothing through quantum fluctuation, so that the Big Bang is not needed in any way, shape or form. I absolutely have to assume that even the best writers consciously or unconsciouly hide facts and ignore possibilities which don't agree with their position in consensus .. and that is not science.

[Chris Peterson]

'Origins' by Tyson - 2004 - page 175 - "Astrophysicists also lack any known mechanism to create Technetium in a star's core and to have it dredge itself up to the surface where they observe it."

I don't have the book, but I doubt he says this. Actually, like the Einstein quote you mangled so badly, I expect you are simply misreading Tyson. In any case, your interpretation, or his statement, is wrong. There is no doubt at all that Technetium is produced by slow neutron capture.

I've been doing considerable reading of books (8)in the past 10 days, all those books written by PHDs in astronomy or astrophysics, and all of them being in the consensus of Big Bang, yet all of them admitting there are huge voids which leave Big Bang a possibility only .. and all of them using Cosmic Background Radiation as evidence of Big Bang .. and all of them neglecting the fact that CBR may not originate from a source other than Big Bang (Catch 22 there)...

It sounds to me like they are being proper scientists, pointing out where theory remains weak or unsupported, and recognizing the difference between theory and fact (as you like to put it). I don't think they are neglecting that there may be other explanations for the CMB- they just aren't enumerating "theories" that you happen to have a fondness for.

.. and only one of those books mentioning that stars (and therefore the universe) can be made from absolutely nothing through quantum fluctuation

Because that's nothing more than science fiction. Where's your evidence that such a thing is possible? Can you even state, with enough clarity for all of us here to understand, what a "quantum fluctuation" is? This sounds like pure pseudoscience to me: use a lot of scientific sounding words, but there's nothing at all behind them.

[Sputnick]

'Origins' by Tyson - 2004 - page 175 - "Astrophysicists also lack any known mechanism to create Technetium in a star's core and to have it dredge itself up to the surface where they observe it."

I don't have the book, but I doubt he says this. Actually, like the Einstein quote you mangled so badly, I expect you are simply misreading Tyson. In any case, your interpretation, or his statement, is wrong. There is no doubt at all that Technetium is produced by slow neutron capture.

You estimation of my ability to copy direct quotes directly and acurately is highly mistaken in both cases. the Einstein quote came directly from his lecture .. the Tyson quote directly from the book. Perhaps it's my turn to ask for proof of your statement about the production of Technetium.

I've been doing considerable reading of books (8)in the past 10 days, all those books written by PHDs in astronomy or astrophysics, and all of them being in the consensus of Big Bang, yet all of them admitting there are huge voids which leave Big Bang a possibility only .. and all of them using Cosmic Background Radiation as evidence of Big Bang .. and all of them neglecting the fact that CBR may not originate from a source other than Big Bang (Catch 22 there)...

It sounds to me like they are being proper scientists, pointing out where theory remains weak or unsupported, and recognizing the difference between theory and fact (as you like to put it). I don't think they are neglecting that there may be other explanations for the CMB- they just aren't enumerating "theories" that you happen to have a fondness for.[/quote]

Definitely not - they off absolutely no doubt that they believe the CBR came from any other source.

.. and only one of those books mentioning that stars (and therefore the universe) can be made from absolutely nothing through quantum fluctuation

I don't have all my notes with me, but I included all that information in a couple places in this forum in the past seven days .. the 'revelation' was reported to have stopped Einstein dead in his tracks as he was crossing a busy street, causing traffic to have to stop to avoid running both him and his well-known scientific friend over .. his friend having told him the revelation. Perhaps you should do more reading(?) May I ask you a personal question .. your age? Sometimes when we age we stop reading new books.

Because that's nothing more than science fiction. Where's your evidence that such a thing is possible? Can you even state, with enough clarity for all of us here to understand ...

I would prefer please that you not 'drag into' a conversation between you and I everyone or anyone else on the forum. You have done so before .. to try to add mass to your singularity.

what a "quantum fluctuation" is? This sounds like pure pseudoscience to me: use a lot of scientific sounding words, but there's nothing at all behind them.

Nope, I can't. I would have to study very advanced mathematics, dealing with Planck scale, as the author did, as the discover of the theory did. I will try to provide you with the discoverer's name but it won't be today as the complete mass of my notes are at home, and I am not at home.

By the way - I hope Nereid or whoever is moderating allows discussion of my new Cafe topic Planetary Formation.

[Chris Peterson]

You estimation of my ability to copy direct quotes directly and acurately is highly mistaken in both cases. the Einstein quote came directly from his lecture .. the Tyson quote directly from the book.

I don't doubt you are able to accurately copy quotes. What I doubt is that you are able to understand the context. I sat down and read the Einstein essay (Physik und Realität) and while the quote was accurate, you totally missed what Einstein was actually saying (which was most certainly not that physicists should become philosophers!)

[Sputnick]

You estimation of my ability to copy direct quotes directly and acurately is highly mistaken in both cases. the Einstein quote came directly from his lecture .. the Tyson quote directly from the book.

I don't doubt you are able to accurately copy quotes. What I doubt is that you are able to understand the context. I sat down and read the Einstein essay (Physik und Realität) and while the quote was accurate, you totally missed what Einstein was actually saying (which was most certainly not that physicists should become philosophers!)

That's definitely not what you said the first time .. however, this too shall pass. Your prejudice against philosophy in science (and it is very strong) forbids you to see what Einstein was saying even though he was saying clearly what he said.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

Hi. Devil's advocate here:

That's definitely not what you said the first time .. however, this too shall pass. Your prejudice against philosophy in science (and it is very strong) forbids you to see what Einstein was saying even though he was saying clearly what he said.

I don't suppose the reverse could ever be true.

[Sputnick]

Hello Sputnick,

Hi. Devil's advocate here:

That's definitely not what you said the first time .. however, this too shall pass. Your prejudice against philosophy in science (and it is very strong) forbids you to see what Einstein was saying even though he was saying clearly what he said.

I don't suppose the reverse could ever be true.

I don't follow you .. unless you mean I might be prejudiced against Science, but if that were true I wouldn't have spent the last two weeks reading books written by astrophysicist PHDs, etc. I am prejudiced against a science which is prejudiced against the possibility that other science and other theories and other proofs are wrong.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

I've read your posts and understand the comprehensive efforts you have undergone to shore up your viewpoint on several fronts. It would appear again that you have learned much in the process but, in light of the fact that more than a few of your fine references are proponents of the BBT (as stated by yourself) It is self evident that, while they have other viewpoints, their main focus would seem to be the BBT.

And by "the reverse" I meant that your interpretation of Einstein's article could be mistaken? It wouldn't be impossible you know, but that is already within in the philosophy vs. science debate of previous posts.

[Sputnick]

And by "the reverse" I meant that your interpretation of Einstein's article could be mistaken? It wouldn't be impossible you know, but that is already within in the philosophy vs. science debate of previous posts.

Absolutely not. His language and intent is plain. Try reading it again if you haven't yet.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

And by "the reverse" I meant that your interpretation of Einstein's article could be mistaken? It wouldn't be impossible you know, but that is already within in the philosophy vs. science debate of previous posts.

Absolutely not. His language and intent is plain. Try reading it again if you haven't yet.

OK.

[Doum]

Sputnick said,
" I would prefer please that you not 'drag into' a conversation between you and I everyone or anyone else on the forum. You have done so before .. to try to add mass to your singularity. "

-What you are saying Sputnick is that you want all of the forum to stay away from this discussion.(?) It look to me that you are not in the right place here in this forum. Everyone should have the right to join a discussion. Even if they dont support you.