Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Science question for college about carbon based life
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7

Message 31 of 32 (291192)
03-01-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by kallcium
03-01-2006 10:44 AM

why's of carbon
Ok so if carbon is best suited for life how did it get so pleniful. If it was made in stars then wouldn't there be an equal amount of all elements made.
Well, actually no. Remember, when we make the heavier elements we decrease the amount of lighter elements. As H is combined in the solar fusion engine we get He. But to get He two H combine to get one He and some excess energy. As we fuse other lighter elements to get the heavier elements we see this pattern continued, every atom of a heavier element means less atoms of some lighter element are left.
Or at least more of the lighter elements such as H He Li Be and B.
So far our observations seem to support that there is far more of the lighter elements out there. Just look in our own neighborhood. Jupiter which is almost all lighter elements has a mass of over 300 times that of the Earth. The sun which is almost all hydrogen is over a 1000 times more massive than all the planets put together.
If Carbon was made in stars then why would this planet be made mostly of Iron at least in the core and mantel. I would think Carbon being a lighter element than Iron would be more plentiful.
This planets is like it is because of where it is, where it was made. If it had formed somewhere else in the solar system it would be made of different stuff. We can see this when we look at the different planets in this solar system, and recent discoveries of other solar system seem to be supporting what we see here. As we discover more about other solar systems we will learn whether our observations based on this one example can be applied generally throughout the universe.
That though is an area where we are just beginning to gather evidence so all of our conclusions are certainly subject to change. In fact it's likely that we will see major changes in our understanding of how solar systems are formed over just the next few decades. It's an exciting time.
For the young Earth Creationists is there an alternative to Carbon being made in stars? Any thing with a little science behind it?
There is always the "goddit" answer. But no, there is nothing with even a little science behind it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kallcium, posted 03-01-2006 10:44 AM kallcium has not replied

Member (Idle past 5540 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 02-28-2006

Message 32 of 32 (291196)
03-01-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by kallcium
03-01-2006 11:17 AM

Re: elemental formation
This is way OT. Let's drop this line or take it to one of the appropriate threads
Ok this goes with my last post so please read message # 30
I don't know if I am reading this wrong but this is an exerpt out of an article by Harold S. Slusher PhD
The space between the stars is composed of atoms, molecules and grains of matter. The stars allegedly formed by gravitational collapse from clouds of this material. It is rather baffling how an interstellar grain of matter forms since the density of matter in interstellar space is so low.
Consider the growth rate of a grain which starts with some radius that, of course, will change with time. If this grain forms in space by the sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to this nucleus as they impinge on it at some speed, the growth rate can be calculated. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains Harwil7 has determined a growth rate of (10)-22 centimeters per second (or one-ten-thousand-billion-billionth centimeter per second). To reach a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius under these most favorable conditions it would take about three billion years. Using more likely values for sticking ability of particles, it would take times greater than the alleged age of the galaxy ” more than twenty billion years. Of course, this supposes the grain will form, though this seems impossible, since the hydrogen that would be deposited on the grain would ordinarily evaporate right back off very rapidly. Sputtering by fast moving protons can easily jar loose the atoms of the surface of the grain even after they become attached. The formation of molecules poses just as great a difficulty as the formation of dust grains. It is easy to destroy them but very difficult, if not impossible, to form them in interstellar space.
If it takes as long to form such a simple object as an interstellar grain as the calculations indicate under the most hopeful of conditions (that do not actually exist at all), how can the huge ages for the stars and galaxies have any credibility and be taken seriously? Effects such as evaporation, sputtering, and vapor pressure would seem to destroy any grains that might form.
So if stars exploded and brought carbon and even less likely the heavier elements only formed in giant stars (I say less likely because less giant stars)Then how did carbon and others get here in suffient quanities if what this article says is true. It would take more time than the universe is old to have carbon and other elements come together because the time it takes for just H and He to come together.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-01-2006 11:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kallcium, posted 03-01-2006 11:17 AM kallcium has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024