origin of radioactive matter

[juvenissun]

Before we deal with trying to manipulate decay constants, can I take it that you admit that you cannot find any difficulty with supernova stellar nucleosynthesis of elements found in our Solar System?

No, I won't admit that. I did not try to "find" what could be wrong with the model because I know very little about it. I am not a nuclear physicist. I just assume it is true.

I do believe that if I were a nuclear physicist, I WILL find difficulty in that hypothesis. Just like I do not question 1+1=2, but I do believe it is NOT that simple.

 

[metherion]

How did gravity clean up our little corner of the sky so neatly?

By sucking everything in? That's what gravity does.

Also, out little corner of space isn't nearly as neat and tidy as you seem to think it is. Ever heard of the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud? And I'm sure you've heard of the asteroid belt. The planets have vacuumed up most of what's nearby themselves, and the Sun has also gotten a lot, but where they don't go close enough to get everything lots of random stuff piles up.

Metherion

 

[shernren]

No, I won't admit that. I did not try to "find" what could be wrong with the model because I know very little about it. I am not a nuclear physicist. I just assume it is true.

I do believe that if I were a nuclear physicist, I WILL find difficulty in that hypothesis. Just like I do not question 1+1=2, but I do believe it is NOT that simple.

Well, then all I can say is: try harder.

A lot harder.

Harder than the millions of nuclear physicists alive today who've spent years, some decades, in the field and seen nothing wrong with it.




(1 + 1 = 2 is actually that simple, by the way; no matter which way you try to dissect it and no matter how many big guns you bring to bear, it's generally true. Except in Z/2Z. 2 + 2 = 4, on the other hand ... )

 

[juvenissun]

Well, then all I can say is: try harder.

A lot harder.

Harder than the millions of nuclear physicists alive today who've spent years, some decades, in the field and seen nothing wrong with it.




(1 + 1 = 2 is actually that simple, by the way; no matter which way you try to dissect it and no matter how many big guns you bring to bear, it's generally true. Except in Z/2Z. 2 + 2 = 4, on the other hand ... )

This one only takes me less than a minute.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j33l3n4854384p6w/

 

[juvenissun]

Well, then all I can say is: try harder.

A lot harder.

Harder than the millions of nuclear physicists alive today who've spent years, some decades, in the field and seen nothing wrong with it.




(1 + 1 = 2 is actually that simple, by the way; no matter which way you try to dissect it and no matter how many big guns you bring to bear, it's generally true. Except in Z/2Z. 2 + 2 = 4, on the other hand ... )

This one does not take long either.

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/second1eq2.html

 

[shernren]

This one does not take long either.

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/second1eq2.html

I don't expect everyone to understand a math joke ...

... but hey. The site said 1=2 is a fallacy.

This one only takes me less than a minute.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j33l3n4854384p6w/

Have you actually read the paper in detail? Do you want me to discuss the detailed figures and predictions the author uses?

Or do you want the executive summary? It sounds something like this: it is very easy for people who have a priori reasons to reject Big Bang cosmology and peddle their own, barely-functional ideas about plasma cosmology to take old measurements out of context and make them sound like the Big Bang can't explain them. More recent measurements have fit the Big Bang pretty well.