Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That makes complete sense. You've already shown yourself to be reliable with such information, so I'll believe you.Frumious Bandersnatch said:When your site is talking about more massive stars burning hydrogen faster is talking about difference between stars ranging from 0.4 solar masses to 9 or even more solar masses. It is NOT talking about the difference between a star with 1.0000000 solar masses as the sun has now and a star with 1.000000001 solar masses as the sun had 50,000 years ago.
okay. I don't doubt you.KerrMetric said:Mostly correct. The red giant thing is in error. It is not helium burning it is the core being helium (and isothermal and degenerate in a low mass star - higher mass stars are somewhat different) and the hydrogen burning being in a shell around the core that the red giant stage begins.
Okay. But concerning the last sentence, I know it isn't losing all the mass of the hydrogen invovled.OdwinOddball said:The statement that a more massive star produces more energy is correct for the birth of stars. When stars are born, they consist almost entirely of Hydrogen. In this, stars are essentially all the same, and thus the more massive a star is, the more energy it puts out.
However, this does not stay correct over time. Yes, the star is losing mass, and thus it does produce less and less energy from its hydrogen reactions. However, it is not losing all the mass of the hydrogen involved in fusion.
Okay. I know that nuclear fusion occurs in the sun, but I thought it was the burning of helium that accounted for most heat from the sun.Fusion is what powers the sun. 2 hydrogen atoms under immense pressure and heat fuse into a single Helium atom , 2 alpha particles, and electro magnetic radiation. This energy is then felt here on earth in the form of heat, visible light, and the solar wind.
I think I almost understand this. One question; how is the amount of Helium increasing? I think if I get this part, the rest will just fall into place.Over time, the amount of hydrogen decreases, and the amount of Helium increases.
okay.So yes Shin, in one respect you are correct. A more massive star does emit more energy than a less massive star. However, trying to aply this to the entire life of a star is a fallacious method. It is much like trying to apply Newtonian Mechanics to sub-atomic particles, it just doesn't apply at these levels.
Someone wanted me to come here and explain my view. So I did. The worst that could happen is that I learn something.Shin, you know the surface level information on most of these subjects. However, instead of following through with your studies to get to the deeper, more advanced understanding, you are taking these simple beginings and trying to solve problems for which they are inadequete.
I don't think you knew where I was coming from with some of my thoughts. I wanted to know that you guys understood what I was trying to first (like with the scale being measured on an asending slope). If you could answer my questions with a full understand of my view, then I could accept your answers.KerrMetric said:So why does it take so many posts?
shinbits said:I don't think you knew where I was coming from with some of my thoughts. I wanted to know that you guys understood what I was trying to first (like with the scale being measured on an asending slope). If you could answer my questions with a full understand of my view, then I could accept your answers.
shinbits said:I think I almost understand this. One question; how is the amount of Helium increasing? I think if I get this part, the rest will just fall into place.
.
shinbits said:I don't think you knew where I was coming from with some of my thoughts. I wanted to know that you guys understood what I was trying to first (like with the scale being measured on an asending slope). If you could answer my questions with a full understand of my view, then I could accept your answers.
Helium is the product of the Nucelar reaction occuring in the sun.shinbits said:Okay. But concerning the last sentence, I know it isn't losing all the mass of the hydrogen invovled.
Okay. I know that nuclear fusion occurs in the sun, but I thought it was the burning of helium that accounted for most heat from the sun.
I think I almost understand this. One question; how is the amount of Helium increasing? I think if I get this part, the rest will just fall into place.
shinbits said:okay.
Someone wanted me to come here and explain my view. So I did. The worst that could happen is that I learn something.
Okay. Thank you for taking the time to explain that.OdwinOddball said:Helium is the product of the Nucelar reaction occuring in the sun.
Hydrogen has 1 proton. Helium has two.
2 atoms of Hydrogen collide, fusing together to form 1 atom of Helium and 2 alpha particles. Thus over time the hydrogen is getting replaced by helium.
Kerrs post right after mine was actually a correction to this part of my post. Read there for how the Red giant cycle works and then switches to helium fussion.
Well said. I'll make sure all future posts are as such.Thats cool that you learned something.
you've discovered soemthing fresh and new. But science relies on self examination to work. You need to spend a little extra time verifing the accuracy of claims, and from non biased sources, before speaking them as truth.
nope that is the best single link on the net.Short answer since I am too new to post links.
Google asa3.org Wiens. Probably the best description of radiometric dating I have seen on the web and he frequently updates it with new material.
Long read but well worth your time if you are really interested.
If anybody knows a better site, I would appreciate you posting a link
I agree. That is a GREAT link and one I've gone to many times.nope that is the best single link on the net.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
here's a good link about isochrons:Hi guys. I read that article while waitning for an answer last night, and I couldn't find an answer to this question in it. Any other links?
Can some one elaborate on this for me? Why does the argon get released in this way?In the argon-argon method the rock is placed near the center of a nuclear reactor for a period of hours. A nuclear reactor emits a very large number of neutrons, which are capable of changing a small amount of the potassium-39 into argon-39. Argon-39 is not found in nature because it has only a 269-year half-life. (This half-life doesn't affect the argon-argon dating method as long as the measurements are made within about five years of the neutron dose). The rock is then heated in a furnace to release both the argon-40 and the argon-39 (representing the potassium) for analysis. The heating is done at incrementally higher temperatures and at each step the ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 is measured. If the argon-40 is from decay of potassium within the rock, it will come out at the same temperatures as the potassium-derived argon-39 and in a constant proportion. On the other hand, if there is some excess argon-40 in the rock it will cause a different ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 for some or many of the heating steps, so the different heating steps will not agree with each other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?