How science knows your gold ring came from stars

dad said:

You have none then, as expected. Ha. Lurkers...behold the religion!

Click to expand...

It is not that scientists have nothing. On the contrary, it is more a matter of an embarras de richesses; it would be several hours work to explain even some of the evidence relating the compositions and kinematics of star systems to their ages, and in particular the evidence that Population II stars (including globular star clusters) are up to about 8 billion years older than the Sun and its planets. It would also be necessary to provide the evidence that the neutron-rich r-process elements (including platinum and gold) were produced either by supernovae or by neutron star mergers.

If one of the contributors to this forum were to explain this evidence to you, would you accept it or make any attempt to understand it? If not, then any such attempt would be a waste of time and effort.

Kylie said:

This sounds like you're saying that you can't point out where the science is wrong, but you feel comfortable discounting it anyway because God could have done it different.

Click to expand...

No, I can't comment on the science, I'm not knowledgeable in that area.

I don't discount the science, I have no problem thinking that there may be gold being formed as a byproduct of stellar activity.

I don't see the relevance towards whether or not the gold on earth was formed this way.

It would be to me like saying we've seen water turn to ice when in proximaty to liquid nitrogen, and there is ice in my refrigrator, therefore the ice in my frig came from proximaty to liquid nitrogen. Showing a causal effect in one instance does not mean that the same causal effect is true in all instances.

Much love!

imMD said:

No, I can't comment on the science, I'm not knowledgeable in that area.

I don't discount the science, I have no problem thinking that there may be gold being formed as a byproduct of stellar activity.

I don't see the relevance towards whether or not the gold on earth was formed this way.

It would be to me like saying we've seen water turn to ice when in proximaty to liquid nitrogen, and there is ice in my refrigrator, therefore the ice in my frig came from proximaty to liquid nitrogen. Showing a causal effect in one instance does not mean that the same causal effect is true in all instances.

Much love!

Click to expand...

If you accept the science regarding how gold formed, why would you think the gold on Earth did not form that way?

I mean, regarding your ice analogy, we are aware of ice forming in ways without liquid nitrogen, and we have a clear scientific explanation of how that happens. I'm not aware of any explanation of gold formation other than the scientific one.

dad said:

Explain how checking what we see being produced now proves something that is not here?

Click to expand...

What do you think I am saying is not there, dad?

Kylie said:

Well, as with all radioactive isotopes, we know the ratios that will be produced.

So why don't we check the ratios that exist in the real world?

Click to expand...

Here's a graph from a recently published Astrophysical Journal study (Feb 2019), of thousands of silicon/carbide grains from a collection of chondritic meteorites which fell to Earth. The aim was to identify the possible sources of the grains based on isotope ratios.

They measured and mapped the isotopic ratios of each individual grain, which they found grouped naturally into three main star categories. The star category/grouping boxes, in turn, were predictions based on real stellar spectroscopic measurements and the physical conditions capable of generating the isotopic ratios indicated.

The dotted line marks where Earth's average isotopic composition currently lies. The clustering around the intersection of these lines gives a pretty good indication of how/where the Earth's average isotopic ratio originated, given the obvious ongoing meteorite deposition process we currently observe (in the present).


Caption reads: Plotting the carbon and nitrogen isotopes in stardust grains places them in distinct groups, based on their origins. The nova candidate grains lie at lower left in yellow, with the proven nova grains in red. The dotted line marks where Earth's average isotopic composition lies. Credit: Bose and Starrfield, ASU.

ETA:
PS: (Of interest - 'with a half life of 5730 years, 14C decays by beta emission back into the 14N from which it originated').

SelfSim said:

Here's a graph from a recently published Astrophysical Journal study (Feb 2019), of thousands of silicon/carbide grains from a collection of chondritic meteorites which fell to Earth. The aim was to identify the possible sources of the grains based on isotope ratios.

They measured and mapped the isotopic ratios of each individual grain, which they found grouped naturally into three main star categories. The star category/grouping boxes, in turn, were predictions based on real stellar spectroscopic measurements and the physical conditions capable of generating the isotopic ratios indicated.

The dotted line marks where Earth's average isotopic composition currently lies. The clustering around the intersection of these lines gives a pretty good indication of how/where the Earth's average isotopic ratio originated, given the obvious ongoing meteorite deposition process we currently observe (in the present).

View attachment 258429
Caption reads: Plotting the carbon and nitrogen isotopes in stardust grains places them in distinct groups, based on their origins. The nova candidate grains lie at lower left in yellow, with the proven nova grains in red. The dotted line marks where Earth's average isotopic composition lies. Credit: Bose and Starrfield, ASU.

ETA:
PS: (Of interest - 'with a half life of 5730 years, 14C decays by beta emission back into the 14N from which it originated').

Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that the ratios of radioisotopes are exactly what we'd expect to see if they had all formed as a result of radioactive decay, yes?

Tell me, do you think it's likely that we'd see these ratios if the radioisotopes had formed in a different way, without involving radioactive decay?

Kylie said:

If you accept the science regarding how gold formed, why would you think the gold on Earth did not form that way?

I mean, regarding your ice analogy, we are aware of ice forming in ways without liquid nitrogen, and we have a clear scientific explanation of how that happens. I'm not aware of any explanation of gold formation other than the scientific one.

Click to expand...

That's just it, Kylie, science is supposed to be "what we know". What data do we have that tells us this is actually how the gold in the earth was formed? I could accept that or not, it seems arbitrary to me without actual data.

For me, we're dealing with a subset of a much bigger question. Whether gold is formed in this way or that way, this is all just "inner workings", if you will, of the cosmos. But the cosmos didn't form that way, because it wasn't there, and then it was. And for that, all anyone can do, imho, is postulate the answer.

Much love!

dad said:

For example, the gold detected in recent reactions in stars did not smash into your living room. Why would I think it landed in the world around the time of the garden of Eden? Proof?

Click to expand...

Was there a Garden of Eden? What time was that? Proof?