It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is iron the end all for stars?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You can try in experimentation.

The gases do not collapse just by gravity. Otherwise there would not be any interstellar cloud out there.

The gases spread. This is the reason there are diffuse gases even in inter-galactic space.

I am telling you something which is against your beliefs and against the current scientific thinking.

You remember what I said. If you live long enough (next 30 years), you will see the truth in my statements.




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
The question to ask is how would a body form from pure hydrogen and helium?

The gases do not clump together. Clumping is necessary to form a body.

What we have are clouds of gas and dust that have directional velocity as well as rotational velocity. These clouds give rise to stars.

The lighter molecules stay to the outside, but heavier molecules migrate to the center of rotation and start to clump together. This is how a star starts forming.


Gasses like hydrogen and helium are matter. And matter, even broken down into individual atoms have mass.

A handful of hydrogen atoms close together will have more mass than the surrounding individual atoms of hydrogen, which will attract those other hydrogen atoms due to gravitation.

By doing so, it gives it even more mass, which gives it an even stronger attraction.

So yes, gasses can "clump together" to form stars eventually given enough time and amount of those gasses.
edit on 22-8-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
I am telling you something which is against your beliefs and against the current scientific thinking.
That much is true, but it contradicts not just thinking, but observation, meaning it's wrong. Specifically, the part you're telling us about metallicity is contradicted by observation. You're still making big claims but you failed to refute the low metallicity observation noted in the article I posted earlier.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Obviously gravity works on gases.

However gravity becomes weaker with distance. The heavenly bodies form from clouds with very low density.

The "big bang" like an explosion threw matter at a very high velocity in all directions, so matter expanded very quickly.

This matter would not coalesce into bodies if it was all gases. You can try this with experiment.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Stars come to end of their life in a variety of ways. Most stars do not exhaust the hydrogen gas at the end of their life.

A hydrogen/helium cloud can form due to star explosions, as outer layers of massive stars are blown off.

It is a theoretical view that an 'observed cloud' is a result of matter that initially formed from big bang.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Obviously gravity works on gases.

However gravity becomes weaker with distance. The heavenly bodies form from clouds with very low density.

The "big bang" like an explosion threw matter at a very high velocity in all directions, so matter expanded very quickly.

This matter would not coalesce into bodies if it was all gases. You can try this with experiment.


Gas here on Earth will not "coalesce" as you put it, no. Earth's gravity has too much of an influence upon those atoms for the gas.

In order for it to do as I say, it needs to be away from other strong gravitational influences.

As as for the Big Bang exploding with "matter".........well I won't argue cosmology in this thread as it's carrying it off topic.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


There is no place where gravity does not exist.

Massive clouds that form stars are affected by gravity as well - from center of galaxy and other objects inside and outside.

Gravity on earth is not a good reason to discount the theory.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Stars come to end of their life in a variety of ways. Most stars do not exhaust the hydrogen gas at the end of their life.

A hydrogen/helium cloud can form due to star explosions, as outer layers of massive stars are blown off.

It is a theoretical view that an 'observed cloud' is a result of matter that initially formed from big bang.
The way you can tell the difference between gases released from a star explosion and from the big bang is by the ratios of hydrogen to helium and other elements.

When a star explodes in a supernova, it has been converting hydrogen to helium for some time so there will be a greater helium to hydrogen ratio in the supernova remnants, not to mention heavier elements as well.

So while technically it's correct to say the assumption that astronomers found some pristine gas from the big bang is theoretical, that doesn't mean it's not well supported by evidence. They would observe a different ratio of elements had the gases been ejected by a star exploding.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So you are saying they found a cloud of pristine hydrogen gas created just after big bang?

Is that what the article says?



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So you are saying they found a cloud of pristine hydrogen gas created just after big bang?

Is that what the article says?
I already quoted the part of the article that mentions the timing and how long after the big bang.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are having this much problem with reading comprehension, it's not surprising you'd disagree with mainstream science...you seem to be confused by simple statements about timing in the article I posted. Science gets a lot more complicated than this simple reading comprehension issue. I think it's more likely you need to work on your reading comprehension, than it is that science is wrong.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I do not think so.

It is very easy to hurl abuses at others. Good job my friend.

You did not understand the purpose of what I wrote.

The article you linked is full of assumptions and theories rather than real science.

People like you get duped easily, and dupe others.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
You did not understand the purpose of what I wrote.

The article you linked is full of assumptions and theories rather than real science.
The article clearly states how long after the big bang, and you asked me what the article said about how long after the big bang. If the purpose wasn't to demonstrate your difficulty with reading comprehension, perhaps you should have stated the purpose of what you wrote.

If you want to see the real science, you won't find it in the article. You need to read the paper the 3rd paragraph of the article refers to.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


the way i digested your linked explaination...

the physics of nuclear processes causes the star to burn all fuel---then all thats left is the ash/cinders: iron core

the origional star actually devolves... then blows up to provide cosmic junk yards where new stars can be born
(reincarnated)
 


i wonder if iron, which can be magnetized, which also is the end of the Stars fission-fusion process has a relationship... is having magnetic properties the death knell for nuclear fission-fusion or vice-versa

iron is a necessary mineral in our diets for rich blood...but thats seems to upset the notion that Iron is a dense element which is devoid of energy....I would think that Lead would be the stage at which a Star would burn-out

this thinking about Iron has me wondering about the prophetic 10 toes of iron and clay that was the final empire of the Nebchadnezzar Statue of World Empires...
that symbolic statue de-volved from gold-silver-bronze-iron- to a mixture of iron & clay


edit on 23-8-2013 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
iron is a necessary mineral in our diets for rich blood...but thats seems to upset the notion that Iron is a dense element which is devoid of energy
I understand that iron is needed in our diet for our blood, but I have no idea what you mean by the rest of that statement. Iron isn't an energy source, it's a transport mechanism.

So if you have low iron in the blood you might have low energy, but that's technically due to the reduced amount of oxygen, which is carried in reduced amounts if you have low iron in your blood.


I would think that Lead would be the stage at which a Star would burn-out
Why would you think that?



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So you are saying they found a cloud of pristine hydrogen gas created just after big bang?

Is that what the article says?
I already quoted the part of the article that mentions the timing and how long after the big bang.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are having this much problem with reading comprehension, it's not surprising you'd disagree with mainstream science...you seem to be confused by simple statements about timing in the article I posted. Science gets a lot more complicated than this simple reading comprehension issue. I think it's more likely you need to work on your reading comprehension, than it is that science is wrong.


Science is always wrong, work with that on the side and you won't have to take things to vulgar insults. You guys can debate until the end of time, insulting and snobbing with all that doctrine until it's a room of second year college science wannabes arguing with one another until they're blue in the face. It won't prove anything with insults.

Once you realize that, it's a set of models, you think within the abstract models. I am not impressed and I think all these efforts to win the wit are in vain until someone in this thread brings up a formula with a sigma and a bracket in it, frankly.

It's all weird past your chemistry set of hydrogen, iron, etc when it's a limited model. How much fusion is observable? ZERO. It's a guess; you aren't taking a space ship and scooping up samples from a star, it's run from mathematical doctrines that you are trying to force on others to be real. The science delusion, it's part of keeping a level head among peers. It looks good on paper. That's your problem; that's everybody's problem some days.

Fundamental argument proven: where's the beef? Where's the proof? Again, bracket, sigma mess, some deltas and some other greek crap, and I don't want to hear any finals until I see buzzwords like lorentzian field manifolds and muon fields. To hell with iron and ooooold concepts that result in because fusion. I see REfusion when I read fusion arguments.

So. carry on.

So, to get to the point after all those hints in the response, why is there iron? Because some stars have iron. Maybe. How much have you actually seen? Ever pick up some iron and go, hm, looks like it came from that star? Maybe it came out of a hyperspace dimension where the whole universe is only iron, and it teleports through the forces in the middle of those stars, and what you see, a space pimple. Like on all the nerds pushing their pocket protecters in here.
edit on 23-8-2013 by Sandalphon because: nerdy mcnerd nerd



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Very interesting, thanks for the information.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sandalphon
 


That's a lot of talk, but the question boils down to this: was iron created in the Big Bang (or whichever other origin of the universe you support), or was it not? If it wasn't, then it was created inside stars.

Science forms models based on observation, and the observations of the universe show the vast prevalence of hydrogen. Why isn't there just as much of iron or gold as there is of hydrogen? Why do we see vast intergalactic clouds of hydrogen, but no such clouds of iron or uranium? Observations tell us that hydrogen is the raw material that the universe has started with. Succesfull H-bomb tests and other experiments show that at incredible tempretures and pressures, hydrogen fuses into helium, and helium into a succession of heavier elements. Maths, experiments, and observations, all come together to help us form a model of the universe that can be tested with further observations and, when possible, experiments.

Science saves people's lives in hospitals, improves our daily lives, allows us to study the world we live in, and allows you to use your computer to type these posts. Don't diss science, without it we would still be living in huts or caves and hunt for food with clubs or spears.
edit on 24-8-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
To add to this thread, energy is created from the fusion process until you get iron. To fuse something heavier than iron, it requires more energy to fuse than the process creates. The energy output of the star runs into a serious problem at that point. To fuse heavier and heavier atoms together, pressure and density needs to be higher and higher. The elements fuse together generally in sequence as you go up the periodic table. It is not entirely in sequence according to the attached link. It starts with two hydrogen atoms fusing together to form helium. Not all stars have enough mass to keep burning until they reach the iron creation process.

Here is a good link explaining fusion in easy to understand terms.
physicscentral.com...

Plus, it reveals that 93% of the atoms in our bodies were created in stars via this fusion process. Sort of amazing to think most of the atoms in our bodies were once inside a star undergoing this fusion process we have been discussing.

Here is a link defining fusion as opposed to fission.
en.wikipedia.org...

I find Astronomy very interesting and took a course in College as an elective. I think it should have been taught as a required science course in High School. So much basic stuff about the nature of our universe was taught in it that is not getting out to the general public. High Schools could replace an English literature class with basic science instead. Plus maybe add a class in basic finance and economics. I was surprised the Astronomy class I was in not only covered fusion, but weather patterns as well as far as planet rotations are involved. That is Basic Science that seems to be lacking among the general public because it's not getting taught to most people. Just my opinion.

edit on 25/8/13 by orionthehunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Wikipedia has a good breakdown of the various fusion processes in stars: Key reactions

If I got this right (please correct me if I'm wrong), it goes something like this:

1. Hydrogen fuses into Helium (with some Lithium and Beryllium produced by various processes).
2. Helium fuses into Carbon via Beryllium. Some of the produced Carbon can also fuse with Helium into Oxygen.
3. Carbon fuses to produce Neon, Sodium, Magnesium and Oxygen.
4. Neon reactions produce additional Oxygen and Magnesium.
5. Oxygen fuses into Silicone, Phosphorus and Sulfur.
6. Silicone uses alpha particles (Helium nuclei) to turn into a succession of heavier elements: Silicone -> Sulfur -> Argon -> Calcium -> Titanium -> Chromium -> Iron -> Nickel. Fusing Nickel into the next element, Zinc, requires more energy than it gives off, so the star's fusion process stops there, and the core collapses catastrophically.

I hope knowlegeable people here help me with a bit of discrepancy which I see here. Some articles make it clear that Iron is the last element produced, but here we see that Iron is also used to produce Nickel.



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
I hope knowlegeable people here help me with a bit of discrepancy which I see here. Some articles make it clear that Iron is the last element produced, but here we see that Iron is also used to produce Nickel.
Yes there's a discrepancy. I think it can be resolved by saying that iron is the last stable element produced.

The nickel-56 produced is unstable, and has a half-life of 6 days which is probably why some sources don't feel like it's worth mentioning. And what does the unstable nickel-56 decay into? Cobalt-56, which in turn decays into Iron-56. You'd have a hard time finding any of this unstable nickel on Earth (though statistically there are probably a few atoms left), but stable iron of course is plentiful on Earth.

Isotopes of Nickel

Naturally occurring nickel (Ni) is composed of five stable isotopes; 58Ni, 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni and 64Ni with 58Ni being the most abundant (68.077% natural abundance).
No mention of Nickel-56 there, but you could find it at the end of the star's life before it decays, and it's also produced in abundance in type 1a supernovae, in which case it again eventually decays into cobalt-56 then iron-56.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join