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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by GargIndia
I am telling you something which is against your beliefs and against the current scientific thinking.
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.
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.
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.
I already quoted the part of the article that mentions the timing and how long after the big bang.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Why would you think that?
I would think that Lead would be the stage at which a Star would burn-out
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I already quoted the part of the article that mentions the timing and how long after the big bang.
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?
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.
Yes there's a discrepancy. I think it can be resolved by saying that iron is the last stable element produced.
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.
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.
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).