The Periodic Table as you have probably never seen before.

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,889
✟273,846.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
periodic_table_v3.png
 

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Elements higher than iron (Fe) are a wild guess, because there is no known (naturally occurring) process for creating by nuclear fusion what is energetically unfavorable, especially as the atomic number gets higher. All other elements, iron and below, fall into the category of what I regard as inductive fallacy, which is to say that they falsely expand a small truth to explain more than is applicable. The false assumption is that the origin of all elements can be explained by some manner of nuclear fusion, and if not that, then by some other natural process. It's an a priori conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Elements higher than iron (Fe) are a wild guess, because there is no known (naturally occurring) process for creating by nuclear fusion what is energetically unfavorable, especially as the atomic number gets higher. All other elements, iron and below, fall into the category of what I regard as inductive fallacy, which is to say that they falsely expand a small truth to explain more than is applicable. The false assumption is that the origin of all elements can be explained by some manner of nuclear fusion, and if not that, then by some other natural process. It's an a priori conclusion.
That like saying that just because the bite marks on a gazelle are similar to the bite marks on a mouse, and the jaws on a lion are similar to a house cats, it would be an a priori conclusion to assume lions kill like cats if you don;t directly witness it.
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The false assumption is that the origin of all elements can be explained by some manner of nuclear fusion, and if not that, then by some other natural process. It's an a priori conclusion.

Yes, totally unreasonable that they omit the possibility of magical poofing.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,687
8,038
US
✟1,060,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Please select any one element and detail what you consider speculative about its proposed origin.

Why select just one? I find it to be highly speculative to say that (at a glance at this table) the bulk of the mass of this planet came from exploding stars. If this is so; it would stand to reason that nearly every other planet in the universe would have come about by the same process. Where is the evidence of all of these exploding stars? Please don't say the planets. I won't entertain a circular argument today.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,654
11,693
54
USA
✟294,108.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Elements higher than iron (Fe) are a wild guess, because there is no known (naturally occurring) process for creating by nuclear fusion what is energetically unfavorable, especially as the atomic number gets higher. All other elements, iron and below, fall into the category of what I regard as inductive fallacy, which is to say that they falsely expand a small truth to explain more than is applicable. The false assumption is that the origin of all elements can be explained by some manner of nuclear fusion, and if not that, then by some other natural process. It's an a priori conclusion.

It's called neutron capture. All you need is a source of neutrons and something to capture them. There are two main processes, the slow (or s-process) and rapid (or r-process).

The s-process occurs in lower mass stars (like the Sun, but not yet) in their later stages when alpha (He-4) captures on neutron-rich isotopes like C-13 and Ne-22 liberate neutrons that are easily captured on heavier nuclei (like Fe) and these "seeds" gradually capture a sequence of neutrons and if the new nucleus is unstable, beta-decays (converts one of the neutrons into a proton, moving up the element chart). The s-process is slow because the decays happen more rapidly than the captures. (This is the yellow above Fe on the OP chart.)

The r-process occurs when very large numbers of neutrons are around and many captures happen in rapid succession, until the nuclei reach the neutron drip line. (the place for any element when no more neutrons can attach) Decays near the drip line are very rapid as these isotopes are very unstable to beta-decay. The whole process move nuclei rapidly up the element table until the supply of neutrons runs out or it reaches the top of the element table. The r-process site is somewhat unknown, but neutron star mergers are likely. Another possibility is during the explosion of a massive stars. (The r-process is the orange stuff in the OP chart above Ni.)
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,287
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,569.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Looks highly speculative to me.


You obviously lack artistic taste.

I think it looks lovely. The combination of moody greens and blues with the optimism of the yellow/orangy bits shows a masterful control of colour and contrast all anchored in a deep brooding blackness.

And the startling injection of the pinkness of the cosmic ray fission adds an optimistic small, big bang to the entire masterwork.

In my opinion it is to die for. :rolleyes:

OB
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,889
✟273,846.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Elements higher than iron (Fe) are a wild guess, because there is no known (naturally occurring) process for creating by nuclear fusion what is energetically unfavorable, especially as the atomic number gets higher. All other elements, iron and below, fall into the category of what I regard as inductive fallacy, which is to say that they falsely expand a small truth to explain more than is applicable. The false assumption is that the origin of all elements can be explained by some manner of nuclear fusion, and if not that, then by some other natural process. It's an a priori conclusion.
Hans Blaster got ahead of me with an excellent response so I make some further additions.
A problem with neutron capture which nuclear physicists are familiar with is that neutron capture by nuclei can only occur within a limited range of neutron kinetic energies.
There didn't appear to be any astrophysical process that could moderate neutron energy to facilitate neutron capture until the discovery of gravitational waves.
Gravitational waves from merging neutron stars are able to moderate neutron energies by taking away some of this energy.
Heavy elements formed by GW170817 (=GRB 170817A short gamma ray burst) have been detected by ESO.
ESO Telescopes Observe First Light from Gravitational Wave Source - Merging neutron stars scatter gold and platinum into space
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,371
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,984.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, totally unreasonable that they omit the possibility of magical poofing.
It does not rule out that God can use nuclear fusion as his manifestation of creation though.
In fact higher elements that we know no way of having spontaneous fusion existing to me says it's likely that God can perform nuclear fusion even against unfavorable conditions, where something like that happening spontaneously on its own is impossible.
I have no qualms of God using scientific means to create the universe. God demonstrates multiple ways of performing miracles throughout the bible.
He spoke light into existence but did not show how most of the rest of the earth and animals were created as in Genesis 1 the act of speaking and creation are in separate verses.
He also sculpted men from elements of the earth and made it alive in Genesis 2, and he appeared to use cloning techniques to create Eve from Adam, putting Adam under anesthesia, operating on him surgically to remove a long flat bone (which is one of the largest sources of hematopoeisis in adults, a great source of stem cells) that would not be missed, and created a woman from it and sutured him up (metaphorically speaking, he probably didn't use stitches you know). 3 methods of creation rather than using the same means every single time.
When He went around as Jesus healing all the ill, He did so in different ways as well. For some He simply spoke and they were healed, for a blind man He spat in the dirt and rubbed the mud over the man's eyes and he could see again. Some people He touched, other people touched the hem of his garments. Never assume that God is limited to magical poofing things into existence, always remember that every scientific law man has discovered, God created in the first place to have a universe that functions on its own, that's His design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Please select any one element and detail what you consider speculative about its proposed origin.
It is amazing how creationists tend to turn tail and run when one points that that the claim of "speculation" or "assumption" puts a burden of proof upon them. Worse yet they never seem to realize how they are probably breaking the Ninth Commandment by their claim.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Elements higher than iron (Fe) are a wild guess, because there is no known (naturally occurring) process for creating by nuclear fusion what is energetically unfavorable, especially as the atomic number gets higher. All other elements, iron and below, fall into the category of what I regard as inductive fallacy, which is to say that they falsely expand a small truth to explain more than is applicable. The false assumption is that the origin of all elements can be explained by some manner of nuclear fusion, and if not that, then by some other natural process. It's an a priori conclusion.
If you know what a neutron star is and have heard about gravitational waves observations in the news then... here is what is thought to happen when 2 neutron stars spiral together (due to orbital decay due to radiating energy in the form of gravitational waves) --
Neutron-Star Collision Reveals Origin of Gold, Astronomers Say | Live Science

Strontium observed from that merger:
First Identification of a Heavy Element Born from Neutron Star Collision - Newly created strontium, an element used in fireworks, detected in space for the first time following observations with ESO telescope
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,495
✟236,480.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Why select just one? I find it to be highly speculative to say that (at a glance at this table) the bulk of the mass of this planet came from exploding stars. If this is so; it would stand to reason that nearly every other planet in the universe would have come about by the same process. Where is the evidence of all of these exploding stars? Please don't say the planets. I won't entertain a circular argument today.
The evidence is multi-fold. Some examples:
1. We have observed the explosion of stars.
2. We have observed the debris of such explosions.
3. We have an excellent theory, supported by spectral analysis of many thousands of stars and soundly derived concepts of nuclear physics, that heavier elements are produced in such stars.
4. We detect these elements throughout the universe and have no plausible, natural alternative.
5. We have established evolutionary pathways for stars based upon their mass, initial composition and, in some case, interaction with close neighbours. This is wholly consistent with the observed explosion of some stars.
6. The composition of Giant Molecular Clouds, determined by spectral analysis, confirms their origin from exploding stars. The observed collapse of these clouds leads, both theoretically and by observation, to formation of planetary systems.
7. Etc.

(Staff Edit - 3/15/20)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,889
✟273,846.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
periodic_table_v3.png

Here is a brief description of the different processes described in the Periodic Table.

Big Bang Fusion

Shortly after the Big Bang protons (¹H) and electrons formed.
Neutrons were formed by the collisions between protons and electrons.
As the temperature of the Big Bang dropped, neutrons and protons were able to form deuterium (²H) nuclei.
Two ²H fuse to form Helium (⁴He) nuclei while side chain reactions between H, neutrons, ³He and ⁴He produced small amounts of Lithium (⁷Li).
Further cooling of the Universe reduced the average kinetic energy of nuclei preventing fusion into heavier nuclei as the Coulomb barrier cannot be overcome.
As a result only H, He and Li are products of Big Bang fusion.

Cosmic Ray Fission

Cosmic rays composed largely of protons and alpha particles produced in the ejection material of a supernova interacting with the surrounding gas, carry large amounts of kinetic energy which can overcome the Coulomb barrier and cause fission of heavy nuclei.
The fission products are Li, Beryllium (Be) and Boron (B).

Neutron Star Mergers.

This has been covered in this thread and accounts for the majority of heavier elements.

Exploding Massive Stars.

Massive stars, 8 solar masses or greater, can fuse increasingly heavier nuclei.
At the end of the life of a massive star a Silicon (Si) core is surrounded by shells of lighter nuclei.
The binding energy per nucleon (proton or neutron) decreases from iron (Fe) onwards.
As a result when Fe fuses there is no excess energy to counter the gravitational collapse of the core.
When Si nuclei fuse to produce Fe nuclei, the iron core collapses with the surrounding material.
The collapsing iron core attempts to force nucleons into the same energy levels which is not possible due to the Pauli exclusion principle which resists further contraction.
This results in the core which is now composed of neutrons since protons have combined with electrons forced into the nucleus to rebound sending an expanding shock wave through the star.
The infalling material composed of nuclei formed in the shells bounces back and is ejected into space.
The ejected nuclei may carry sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and result in fusion to form heavier nuclei.

Dying Low Mass Stars.

Star less than 8 solar masses do not explode instead the Pauli exclusion principle results in a degeneracy pressure that prevents further fusion of C and Oxygen (O) in the core.
A White Dwarf is formed under these conditions.
While the core no longer supports fusion, the shells surrounding the core can support the fusion of H, He and some heavier nuclei.
These low mass stars can eject large amounts of He, C and Nitrogen (N).
Neutrons are also ejected which can participate in neutron capture processes.

Exploding White Dwarfs.

If the White Dwarf is part of a binary system, gas from the companion star can feed into the White Dwarf.
This increases the mass of the White Dwarf and allows fusion of C and O in the core to proceed which initially was not possible due to degeneracy pressure.
This leads to fusion reactions down to Fe resulting in an explosion as described for exploding massive stars.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Elements higher than iron (Fe) are a wild guess, because there is no known (naturally occurring) process for creating by nuclear fusion what is energetically unfavorable, especially as the atomic number gets higher. All other elements, iron and below, fall into the category of what I regard as inductive fallacy, which is to say that they falsely expand a small truth to explain more than is applicable. The false assumption is that the origin of all elements can be explained by some manner of nuclear fusion, and if not that, then by some other natural process. It's an a priori conclusion.

Scientists have known since 1957 that the elements beyond iron are produced by neutron capture on long or short time scales, not by nuclear fusion. The details were worked out by Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle; see 'Synthesis of the Elements in Stars', Reviews of Modern Physics, 29 (4), 548-650, https://authors.library.caltech.edu/45747/1/BURrmp57.pdf . For a simpler and less mathematical explanation, you could read The Origin of the Chemical Elements (1972), by R.J. Tayler.

The attribution of the production of these heavy elements to s-process and r-process neutron capture was not 'a wild guess'; the abundances of the elements calculated by B²FH from neutron capture theory agree well with the observed abundances. If you know of any other explanation for the origin of these elements that is equally successful in predicting their abundances, I should be interested to hear of it.

There is compelling evidence that supernovae are the main source of iron. The light curves of supernovae match the emission of radiation from the radioactive decay of nickel-56 (with a half-life of 6.1 days) and cobalt-56 (with a half-life of 77 days). This is evidence that large amounts of these nuclides are produced by nuclear reactions in supernovae, and the stable product of their decay is iron-56. Again, if you have a better explanation, I should like to know of it.
 
Upvote 0