Math theories may hold clues to origin, future of life in universe

Jun 09, 2009

How did we get here and where are we headed? These are some of life's biggest questions. To get the answers, one Kansas State University professor is doing the math.

Louis Crane, K-State professor of mathematics, is studying new theories about why the is the way it is. He has a grant from the Foundational Questions Institute to study new approaches to the of gravity, his primary research area as both a mathematician and a physicist. Crane hopes to uncover implications of these theories for the origin and the future of life.

He said that the standard model, which is the accepted theory of physics, has a large number of fundamental constants. Examples are the strengths of fundamental forces and the masses of fundamental particles.

What complicates things, Crane said, is that the theory does not explain the values of these constants. Rather, they are known by measurement and put into equations by hand.

"If they had just slightly different values, we would live in a different universe," Crane said. "If they were a little different, we wouldn't be here."

His work has been published in many journals, including Communications in Mathematical Physics and in Classical and Quantum Gravity. His work on implications for life was accepted for publication and he was invited to present his research at the Evo Devo Conference in Paris in 2008.

Crane said that his ideas build on the work of Lee Smolin, a . Instead of a universe fine-tuned to produce stars, as Smolin suggests, Crane proposes that the universe is fine-tuned to produce successful industrial civilizations, possibly including us.

"Life couldn't exist if stars didn't shine for billions of years," Crane said. "Only a fine-tuning in the constants causes them to do so. Another fine-tuning in the constants causes carbon, the foundation of life, to be abundant."

Crane suggests that if he is correct that artificial black holes are possible, then successful industrial civilizations -- maybe ours -- will eventually produce them. That's because at a certain size they would be a perfect energy source for interstellar travel.

"I started doing calculations and found that the right-sized black hole to fuel a starship is just on the edge of what's possible," he said. "If you can build one, it has implications for the future of life because we would eventually spread life throughout the galaxy if we could build starships."

Black holes are believed to produce a new universe on the other end of the singularity, but one that lies in our future and is always out of reach. Yet such universes, Crane said, also would be fine-tuned to produce life, civilizations and, eventually, more black holes.

"If this is possible, then we will fill the universe with life," he said. "I'm suggesting that life forms are part of a grand evolutionary cycle, which includes universes and ."

Crane is joined in his research by Shawn Westmoreland, a K-State doctoral student in mathematics.

Although there's been a lot of interest in the research from academic philosophers, Crane said that doing such abstract and imaginative research in Kansas often is an interesting experience.

"But I take solace in the Kansas state motto, 'ad astra per aspera,' which means 'to the stars through difficulty,'" he said.

Source: Kansas State University (news : web)

Explore further: Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

MIT physicist receives grant for gravity work

Aug 03, 2006

MIT Professor of Physics Xiao-Gang Wen has received a grant from the Foundational Questions Institute to fund his study of the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity.

Queen of bees dies at 95

Sep 17, 2007

Renowned bee expert Eva Crane has died in England at age 95, the International Bee Research Association she founded announced.

Hitching a Ride Out of a Gluttonous Black Hole

Feb 25, 2006

“Ever since Stephen Hawking showed that black holes evaporate,” says Seth Lloyd, an MIT physicist, “people have wondered about the stuff that comes out of them. Is it just garbage, or is it something ...

Recommended for you

Study finds law dramatically curbing need for speed

18 hours ago

Almost seven years have passed since Ontario's street-racing legislation hit the books and, according to one Western researcher, it has succeeded in putting the brakes on the number of convictions and, more importantly, injuries ...

Newlyweds, be careful what you wish for

Apr 17, 2014

A statistical analysis of the gift "fulfillments" at several hundred online wedding gift registries suggests that wedding guests are caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to buying an appropriate gift for the ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
2.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2009
MATHEMATICS SEES THE INVISIBLE TEMPLATE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE?

Fifty years of research on:

a) The origin of the solar system, and
b) The origin, composition and source of solar energy

Convince me that there is an invisible template that underlies the physical universe. Some might call this "spiritual" reality or the "Spirit of the Universe."

How else can we explain the existence of Louis Crane, a creature consisting of about 100,000,000,000,000 living cells - of which few or none have lived as long as Louis himself?

And each living cell is composed of about 100,000,000,000,000 atoms - which have been exchanging places with the H, C, N, O, and Fe atoms in food, air and water over the life of Louis Crane?

It appears, Louis, that you may be on a spiritual journey.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
jselin
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2009
Omatumr-

Do you not believe we are physical-chemical processes? A fire may start in a small field and grow to consume a countryside... the fuel burning at the time it is extinguished is not the same it started with yet it is the same fire. In this way, fire meets the criteria you set however I doubt you would consider fire to a spiritual being.
Hyperion1110
not rated yet Jun 09, 2009
Cranes work seems very intersting. But I don't think it is anything new. Still kudos to him for throwing aside scientific dogmatism and asking very important questions.
Velanarris
4.3 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2009
I disagree with Crane.

Life is a sum of chemical and physical processes. If the universe was fundamentally changed, what insight or reference does he have to say that a different set of chemical or physical processes would not start and eventually develop to the same level.

As Mr. Manuel has stated, Crane is being incredibly shortsighted.
omatumr
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2009
Omatumr-
Do you not believe we are physical-chemical processes? A fire may start in a small field and grow to consume a countryside... the fuel burning at the time it is extinguished is not the same it started with yet it is the same fire. In this way, fire meets the criteria you set however I doubt you would consider fire to a spiritual being.


I have a PD in nuclear chemistry, I did a post doc in physics, and I spent 50 years doing research on nuclear and space sciences (See my research profile below).

Yet, without an invisible (i.e., spiritual) template, I cannot explain what has been accumulating information for 50 years.

Can you?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
jselin
4.3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2009

Yet, without an invisible (i.e., spiritual) template, I cannot explain what has been accumulating information for 50 years.

Can you?


Unfortunately I cannot. However, Along the same lines computer programs can collect data and to an extent, interpret it. (Based on their programming of course, but are we not programmed by our experience base and environment?)

Just playing devils advocate...
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2009
Unfortunately I cannot. However, Along the same lines computer programs can collect data and to an extent, interpret it. (Based on their programming of course, but are we not programmed by our experience base and environment?)

Just playing devils advocate...
The difference between the human mind and a computer is that there is basic programming on inception of the human system. Without a programmer there is no code by which to interpret or even collect data for a computer.
Nevertheless
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
We are puny. Not innately, of course (innately we are truly extraordinary); however, we as a species are about to transform ourselves (via the events of the coming Singularity, which Ray Kurzweil places sometime near 2045) into creatures of awesome understanding. Are you ready for this, my crew mates of Spaceship Earth? Fortunately, we will have this time to get ready. It won't be easy, nor has it been up until now. Nevertheless, I think we are up to it--we have made it this far...



See my article (http://www.helium...century) for my take on this.



More speculation:



With Voyager I and II, we began sending our intelligence out into the universe at large. Although the Voyagers are our intellectual vanguard, it is my contention that they will not be used for their intended purpose of communicating with some other space faring civilization, but as time capsules for our future generations. Our intelligence will begin to spread out from the epicenter of our solar system at the speed of light. Something like Star Trek's Prime Directive will be our watchword. If we



are not the first to make the journey outward from a cradle of civilization, then we will join up with the pan-galactic culture. Currently, we are limited to the four score and ten, yet Longevist endeavor to put an end to this--we will be immortal too, and the light speed limit will not be as onerous as it is now.



Where did all this come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? I contend that All That Is (ATI), while contemplating a world before the Big Bang, could ponder the consequences of every eventuality from the beginning of spacetime to its end. Planetary worlds are destined to remain quarantined by a vastness of spacetime in order to learn the lesson of altruism. We will join up at the end of spacetime to become the pan-Universal Consciousness that is the ATI of our origin.

retro
3.3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2009
Is this science or Popular Mechanics?? These articles get lighter all the time.
MongHTanPhD
2.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2009
RE: Looking for our spiritual templates!?

Omatumr-

Do you not believe we are physical-chemical processes? A fire may start in a small field and grow to consume a countryside... the fuel burning at the time it is extinguished is not the same it started with yet it is the same fire. In this way, fire meets the criteria you set however I doubt you would consider fire to a spiritual being.


I have a PhD in nuclear chemistry, I did a post doc in physics, and I spent 50 years doing research on nuclear and space sciences (See my research profile below).

Yet, without an invisible (i.e., spiritual) template, I cannot explain what has been accumulating information for 50 years.

Can you?

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

http://myprofile....anuelo09


Yes, I can; it is all in the biochemical processes of our thought-memory system in our brain, as I recently commented here: http://www.nature...-comment [Ancient Venus rewrites history books -- RE: The Origins of Spirituality and Sexuality!? (NatureUK; May 16)] at a time when our spiritual templates might have had begun to create, form, evolve, and organize over 50 thousand years ago -- initially as Shamanism-Paganism to Monotheism-Polytheism today!?

Best wishes, Mong 6/9/9usct2:39p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iunive...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ).
jselin
3 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
The difference between the human mind and a computer is that there is basic programming on inception of the human system. Without a programmer there is no code by which to interpret or even collect data for a computer.


One could argue that there is in fact basic programming... vital functions come functional straight out of the box. Genetic programming of generations past? Following it all the way back you'd reach organisms that did not require cognition to be successful.

Wow, how'd we get so off topic? :)
jselin
1 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
^^^ disregard. I read the original post wrong. :(
DoktorSerendipitous
3 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2009
Kansas, isn't that where the Land of Oz is? What Professor Crane needs is a tornado, not a grant.
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2009
THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THOUGHT MEMORY


RE: Looking for our spiritual templates!?



Omatumr-


Yet, without an invisible (i.e., spiritual) template, I cannot explain what has been accumulating information for 50 years.



Can you?



With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09 ).



Yes, I can; it is all in the biochemical processes of our thought-memory system in our brain,. . . .


Great! What are the physical properties of this "thought-memory system"?

a) Rest Mass?

b) Shape?

c) Density?

e) Color?

f) Etc.?

Thanks for sharing.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com



Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2009
Great! What are the physical properties of this "thought-memory system"?

a) Rest Mass?

b) Shape?

c) Density?

e) Color?

f) Etc.?


A) about 1 to 2 kilograms.

B)Kind of like a human brain unless yours is considerably different.

C)A bit lower than water.

D)Seems to be missing

E) Grey

F) The human brain covers a lot of that. Most likely all of it.

--------------------------

I have a PD in nuclear chemistry, I did a post doc in physics, and I spent 50 years doing research on nuclear and space sciences (See my research profile below).


Yet on your website you have links to some questionable papers. Well the one I looked at was questionable. I am not saying you are lying about your education. I wondering if you have gone down the Crank Road as other physticists have done in the past.

I am refering to this one on the Sun. This is just one of several that cover the same odd idea. The idea that the Sun accreted on a neutron star.

http://www.omatum...ence.pdf

The iron-rich Sun
[11] accreted on the collapsed SN core.


Or this one:
http://www.omatum....prn.pdf

The Sun%u2019s radiant energy and protons in the solar wind
(SW) come from the collapsed supernova core, a neu-
tron star (NS), on which the Sun formed


Now as far as I can tell the smallest possible neutron star would have more mass than the Sun. So its hard to see how one could possibly be in the center of the Sun. On top of which it appears that if hydrogen was to acculuate, for any length of time, on a neutron star then the hydrogen would undergo fusion resulting in one of the gamma ray bursts that have been detected.

Perhaps you can explain what I might be missing here.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
mantyvaara
not rated yet Jun 10, 2009
Reading this comment...
---
"He said that the standard model, which is the accepted theory of physics, has a large number of fundamental constants. Examples are the strengths of fundamental forces and the masses of fundamental particles.

What complicates things, Crane said, is that the theory does not explain the values of these constants. Rather, they are known by measurement and put into equations by hand.

"If they had just slightly different values, we would live in a different universe," Crane said. "If they were a little different, we wouldn't be here."
---
I wonder whether the fundamental particles themselves underwent some type of evolution to be viable for this universe? Maybe only certain particles made it and others were eliminated...
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2009
I wonder whether the fundamental particles themselves underwent some type of evolution to be viable for this universe?


Whatever kind of particles came to be are what the makes universe we live in what it is. In fact some aren't viable in any meaningful sense of the word. That is they have short or even VERY short lifespans. Even neutrons have a half life measured in minutes when they go solo.

Its the laws and the constants that determine the particles at least as far as anyone can figure out so far.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.


Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2009
Ethel,

One problem with your thought-memory system analysis. The brain is not the human body's only source of instructions. We can't quantify where all of the instruction we run by are originating. For example, muscle memory, propensity for someone with hypothalmic disregulation to stay alive after being removed from life support.

There was a child in the news a good many years ago born without a brain or brain stem, yet the child lived for several days. Now without a heart or brain stem, there is no way for the heart to start beating, or continue beating without instruction. Since there was never a controller in place the child shouldn't have ever had a heartbeat of his own, yet he did.
Raritas
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2009
Convince me that there is an invisible template that underlies the physical universe. Some might call this "spiritual" reality or the "Spirit of the Universe."



Template ... mmm thats the key.

Now if you 'cut the teeth' of the key in the right way (specific experience and understanding from an 'open' mind) the door to the template of certain understanding will be yours.

Certain notes create certain events and only those certain notes or tones.

Isnt everything a key to the next, but you must have the former first.

Ah templates of understanding, .. they gave me a 'skeleton' key. :)
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2009
The brain is not the human body's only source of instructions.


Of course not. There are a lot of hormones produced by other tissues. But I was responding to a remark about accumulated information, which in humans is mostly if not entirely in the brain.

Since there was never a controller in place the child shouldn't have ever had a heartbeat of his own, yet he did.


While I have my doubts about that story, an infant born with only a brain stem never lives longer than a few days. Perhaps the brain stem isn't needed for the heart to beat. Heart cells are fully capable of beating on their own. Even individual heart cells.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
ephipi
3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2009
"Since the measuring device has been constructed by the observer ... we have to remember that what we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

-Werner Heisenberg

omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2009
AN INVISIBLE TEMPLATE UNDERLIES THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE?

Convince me that there is an invisible template that underlies the physical universe. Some might call this "spiritual" reality or the "Spirit of the Universe."


There is no way to convince anyone of anything. To convince yourself, if you are so inclined, start asking yourself "Who am I" and discarding trite answers - my physical body, my brain, my personality, etc.

1. The life and continued existence of you and me as creatures capable of accumulating information over decades, as blobs of

a.) Living cells that reproduce, die, and are discarded over our lifetimes, while

b.) Each cell is continuously exchanging O, N, C, H and Fe atoms with food, air, and water

Has been discussed above and in the Preface to my autobiography, "My Journey to the Core of the Sun: A Summary of 50 Joyful Years of Continuous Discovery" (in preparation).

2. Do you remember reading about the discovery of line spectra of light coming from excited Hydrogen atoms?

The H atom can only have certain discrete energy levels?

Quantum mechanics is one "explanation." An invisible template that underlies the physical universe is another.

3. Do you remember reading about the suggestion by Neil Bohr that the line spectra might be explained if the atom and the solar system shared similar properties?

Why does the structure of material on the atomic scale mimic that on the astronomical scale? This puzzling feature of nature has evolved into a field of study called fractals.

This puzzle may also indicate an invisible template of repeating patterns on radically different scales.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/

PS Ethel may want to read and explain the experimental data in "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); doi:10.1038/277615a0
http://www.nature...5a0.html or http://tinyurl.com/359rka
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2009
"Since the measuring device has been constructed by the observer ... we have to remember that what we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

-Werner Heisenberg


Thanks for the excellent quote from Heisenberg.

Oliver K. Manuel
hix1050
4.3 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2009
Here's another parameter of the universe to ponder:

"In an enterprise such as the building of the atomic bomb the difference between ideas, hopes, suggestions and theoretical calculations, and solid numbers based on measurement, is paramount. All the committees, the politicking and the plans would have come to naught if a few unpredictable nuclear cross sections had been different from what they are by a factor of two."

Emilio Segre, from the back of the front page of Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb"

We seem to be fine-tuned for the existence of nuclear weapons.






MongHTanPhD
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2009
RE: Our Mind is the invisible Template of Consciousness, Spirit, etc!

Convince me that there is an invisible template that underlies the physical universe [or Nature]. Some might call this "spiritual" reality or the "Spirit of the Universe [or Consciousness]."


I thought Werner Heisenberg had explained it insightfully before [with minor edits in parenthesis for clarity]:

"Since the measuring device has been constructed by the observer ... we have to remember that what we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning [or our Mind]."


Which means that the Nature we observe is the Nature exposed and reflected and remembered and recalled in our Mind, the invisible Template of Consciousness, Spirit, etc.

Last, but not least:

The brain is not the human body's only source of instructions.


Of course not. There are a lot of hormones produced by other tissues. But I was responding to a remark about accumulated information, which in humans is mostly if not entirely in the brain.

Since there was never a controller in place the child shouldn't have ever had a heartbeat of his own, yet he did.


While I have my doubts about that story, an infant born with only a brain stem never lives longer than a few days. Perhaps the brain stem isn't needed for the heart to beat. Heart cells are fully capable of beating on their own. Even individual heart cells.

Ethelred


The child's heartbeats could have been powered by its autonomous nervous system (in the form of a pacemaker or controller of the heart) that had had innervated and developed with the fetal heart -- that's why the child could survive for a few (natural) days afterbirth!?

Best wishes, Mong 6/10/9usct1:14p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iunive...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ).
Ethelred
4 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2009

2. Do you remember reading about the discovery of line spectra of light coming from excited Hydrogen atoms?

The H atom can only have certain discrete energy levels?

Quantum mechanics is one "explanation." An invisible template that underlies the physical universe is another.

3. Do you remember reading about the suggestion by Neil Bohr that the line spectra might be explained if the atom and the solar system shared similar properties?


The thing is the Solar system does not have properties similar to atoms. The planets can be any size. They can be at any distance from the Sun. If Jupiter wasn't so large the rest of the planets wouldn't have resonant orbits.

So it was a big if and it wasn't right.


PS Ethel may want to read and explain the experimental data in "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis"


I read some of your articles. That wasn't what I asked you about. That the Solar system is likely to have supernova remnants as part of its makeup seems pretty clear these. Your work might even be one of the major reasons it looks that way.

However the claim of a neutron star inhabiting the Sun seems more than a just a little over the top. So again:

Neutron stars are supposed to have a minimum mass that is higher than our Sun.

Hydrogen falling onto a neutron star will not accumulate. It will undergo fusion. At least based on present evidence.

So meteorites can't explain that claim. They can only show that a supernova was involved. The solar massively larger claim does not follow.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
omatumr
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2009
OUR REMARKABLE MINDS!

RE: Our Mind is the invisible Template of Consciousness, Spirit, etc!

. . . . the Nature we observe is the Nature exposed and reflected and remembered and recalled in our Mind, the invisible Template of Consciousness, Spirit, etc.


Let's get this story straight.

1. The atoms in thee and in me were ejected from one or more stars.

My work indicates that all of these atoms were ejected from an explosion of the Sun five billion years (5 Gy) ago: http://arxiv.org/.../0411255

The mainstream view is that the atoms came from many stars.

2. About 100,000,000,000,000 atoms ejected from star(s) collected together to form a single living cell here on planet Earth.

3. About 100,000,000,000,000 living cells collected together to form me and another 100,000,000,000,000 living cells collected together to form thee.

4. These two highly evolved blobs of ~10^14 living cells (~10^28 atoms) are in a constant state of flux, exchanging atoms with their surroundings.

5. The Minds of these highly evolved blobs are the Invisible Template that guided hot, radioactive stellar debris to become highly ordered (structured) organisms via steps 1, 2, 3, 4 above.

Is that your story, Mong?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2009
WHO IS ETHEL RED?

Niels Bohr, a highly respected physicists who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922, noted a similarity between the structure of the Solar System and that of the atom.

Ethel Red disagrees (above).

Ethel Red criticizes our conclusion that the core of the Sun is a neutron star (above).

But Ethel Red does not try to explain the experimental data that we published 30 years ago in "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); doi:10.1038/277615a0 http://tinyurl.com/359rka

Who is this Ethel Red?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09




Niels had a great sense of humor in conveying truths, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." http://tinyurl.com/l92ctp or http://www.gap-sy...els.html
MongHTanPhD
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2009
RE: Our remarkable Minds!

OUR REMARKABLE MINDS!

RE: Our Mind is the invisible Template of Consciousness, Spirit, etc!

. . . . the Nature we observe is the Nature exposed and reflected and remembered and recalled in our Mind, the invisible Template of Consciousness, Spirit, etc.


Let's get this story straight.

1. The atoms in thee and in me were ejected from one or more stars.

My work indicates that all of these atoms were ejected from an explosion of the Sun five billion years (5 Gy) ago: http://arxiv.org/.../0411255

The mainstream view is that the atoms came from many stars.

2. About 100,000,000,000,000 atoms ejected from star(s) collected together to form a single living cell here on planet Earth.

3. About 100,000,000,000,000 living cells collected together to form me and another 100,000,000,000,000 living cells collected together to form thee.

4. These two highly evolved blobs of ~10^14 living cells (~10^28 atoms) are in a constant state of flux, exchanging atoms with their surroundings.

5. The Minds of these highly evolved blobs--[that observe the Universe and reflect it as]--are the Invisible Template that guided hot, radioactive stellar debris to become highly ordered (structured) organisms via steps 1, 2, 3, 4 above.

Is that your story, Mong?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09


Yes, except I would conclude your 5 as follows [with edits in parenthesis]:

5. The Minds of these highly evolved blobs [that could/would observe the Universe and reflect it as] the Invisible Template that [has had since created, evolved, and processed] hot, radioactive stellar debris to become highly ordered (structured) organisms via steps 1, 2, 3, 4 above [on this unique planet Earth over 3 Gy ago].


These are the big questions that I recently addressed here: http://blogs.natu...comments [The Big Science Debate: A Biological Century? -- RE: More research in Cosmology and %u201CConsciousness%u201D in the next 50 years!? (NatureUK; May 27)].

Best wishes, Mong 6/11/9usct3:01p; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), "Gods, Genes, Conscience" (2006: http://www.iunive...95379907 ) and "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" (blogging avidly since 2006: http://www2.blogg...50569778 ).
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2009
WHO IS ETHEL RED?


Not a clue. I do know who Ethelred is.

Niels Bohr, a highly respected physicists who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922, noted a similarity between the structure of the Solar System and that of the atom.

Ethel Red disagrees (above).


Actually Ethelred disagreed, me that is. And I showed why. How about you show where I was wrong. The Bohr planetary style model of the atom has long been known to be wrong. QM replaced it. A interesting similarity is not congruence. Heck Newton has been shown wrong too. Are you going to blame me for that one as well?

I didn't make him wrong. I just pointed out reality. No one can be right all the time even with a Nobel Prize. Heck even I screw up. Sometimes I even notice it. Can't notice it though if someone doesn't actually show what I did wrong. Sometimes that someone is me. So far it sure isn't you.

Ethel Red criticizes our conclusion that the core of the Sun is a neutron star (above).


Again Ethelred did that, yes me. And you had no answer to my question. I see you still don't. I don't see your papers changing the way other physicists think about the Sun. Perhaps if you discuss it here you can figure out a way. I admit that I don't think you can support the idea but maybe you can surprise me.


But Ethel Red does not try to explain the experimental data that we published 30 years ago in "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); doi:10.1038/277615a0 http://tinyurl.com/359rka


Actually it was I, Ethelred, that did explain it. I agreed with the idea of a supernova being involved in the origin of our solar system. I don't see that as justifying a claim of a neutron star being in the Sun without a lot other things being dealt with.


Who is this Ethel Red?


The person asking a question you don't want to answer.

Instead you gave me a one rating. Do it again and you can expect tit for tat.

Just answer the bloody question. Pretty please.

How the heck can a neutron star be in the Sun when there is no reason to think it is possible to have a neutron star of less than 1 Solar Mass? How could matter accumulate on a neutron star without undergoing a catastrophic super nova, as seems to be what happens when hydrogen accumulates on a neutron star or even a white dwarf.

If you can't answer me, at least in a general way, how the heck can you convince your peers? I don't think stonewalling is going to change anyone's mind.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2009
THE SMALLEST NEUTRON STAR

Ethel,

Some neutron-rich nuclei release energy and decay by neutron-emission.

Neutron stars also release energy and decay by neutron-emission.

The neutron star at the core of the Sun releases energy by neutron-emission.

That is why 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen (the neutron-decay product) are discarded by the Sun each year.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatum...dex.html
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2009
SuB; Cosmology-Where do we stand -without understanding the limitations of Theory and Singularity?
Black-hole is a misnomer.Big-Bang is obviously under question ?
Biological frame set of Mind needs to catch-up
-Evolution to catchup with creation ?
Where do we stand without understanding the Origins-
COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS
I introduced Triggered Consciousness in 50 steps
because-Sub-conscious EGO blocks Vision -
the essential Cosmos Yoga Vision development
NTURAL PHILOSOPHY IS SCIENCE. Science of Higher dimensional Knowledge is COSMOLOGY
[See Cosmology Definition}
A dogmatic Mind do not qualify to understand GOD or Divine Principles.
Search:http://www.newciv...hp/_v162
Vidyardhi Nanduri
nuge
3 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2009
"If they had just slightly different values, we would live in a different universe," Crane said. "If they were a little different, we wouldn't be here."

This tired old argument, again. I still don't get why so much fuss is made of this idea. The values are what they are, and we are here. If they weren't, we wouldn't be. Were they "fine-tuned"? Sounds like an ID question to me. GTFO of scientific debate, twits.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2009
Some neutron-rich nuclei release energy and decay by neutron-emission.


Yes.

Neutron stars also release energy and decay by neutron-emission.


Possibly. Kind of hard to get there and do an on site test. Don't mistake theory for experiment. Its a reasonable assumption in the meantime but to pretend its fact is not wise.


The neutron star at the core of the Sun releases energy by neutron-emission.


An assumption based on evidence that only shows that a supernova was likely to have been involved in the origin of the Solar System and in no way shows a that the Sun contains a neutron star core.

That is why 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen (the neutron-decay product) are discarded by the Sun each year.


Or maybe its just the inevitable result of a hot hydrogen plasma and the Solar Wind blowing solar surface material out beyond the Solar atmosphere. There is no reason to choose your idea over the standard concepts. Except ego of course. Ego is important sometimes in advancing new ideas but it does not constitute proof.

"With kind regard" is kind of hypocritical when you ranked me a one again for a post that asked reasonable questions. Questions you are clearly unable to answer based on your rage filled previous post and other posts of yours in the past. One referring to Chicago based critics of yours as fools. Not a wise thing to call your peers.

It is one thing to say they are wrong, or engaging in nonsense but calling people fools usually is fallowed by the sound of mind snapping shut. Not exactly a sure path to acceptance.


Tit for tat will now follow. I am not going Barakn's route. What did you do to piss Barakn off that much? Apparently he thinks massive retaliation is rational or perhaps you did do something that was even more ill tempered than your previous post on this thread. Anyway, for each 'one' you give me I will give you 'one'. Its a proven strategy. Starting from the first you gave. They will go posts that Barakn hasn't hit already as to do that would make it meaningless.

Again you refused to answer the questions. A neutron star must be larger than around 1.3 Solar Masses and since you seem to have a worship for Bohr's Nobel, keep in mind that number is from S. Chandrasekar's Nobel winning work and not from mere idle speculation later shown to be wrong as in the case of Bohr's Atom.

Its not enough to have a theory with numbers. Its not enough to have evidence. You need both. But your evidence doesn't support such an extreme claim and the theory has no numbers to show how a neutron core:

Could be that small.

Could have hydrogen accumulate on it without a catastrophic star shattering supernova.

If you can't answer those questions you have no business acting like you have the answer to Life the Universe and Everything. You have speculation at best which is something you seem quite unwilling to admit.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2009
MINIMUM MASS OF NEUTRON STAR

Ethel,

I did not mean to upset you.

Repulsive interactions between neutrons cause neutron stars to decay and release energy by neutron-emission [J. Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001); J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 252, 3-7 (2002); ESA-SP-500, editor: Barbara Warmbein), pp. 787-790 (2003); Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Beyond Standard Model Physics - BEYOND 2002 (IOP, Bristol, editor: H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus) pp. 307-316 (2003); etc].

The neutron itself is therefore the minimum mass.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/



omatumr
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2009
. . . referring to Chicago based critics of yours as fools. Not a wise thing to call your peers.

It is one thing to say they are wrong, or engaging in nonsense but calling people fools usually is fallowed by the sound of mind snapping shut. Not exactly a sure path to acceptance.

Tit for tat will now follow. I am not going Barakn's route. What did you do to piss Barakn off that much? Apparently he thinks massive retaliation is rational or perhaps you did do something that was even more ill tempered than your previous post on this thread. Anyway, for each 'one' you give me I will give you 'one'. Its a proven strategy. Starting from the first you gave. They will go posts that Barakn hasn't hit already as to do that would make it meaningless.

Ethelred


Ethel,

The debate with colleagues at the University of Chicago was actually quite civil.

You can read the opinions of both parties in the library [See:"Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209; 209-210 (1977)].

Or you can read this pdf file: http://tinyurl.com/ypxbk3

"Tit for tat" has no place in science.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
JukriS
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2009
Explaination of the OneSimplePrinciple Model

From: gadzometer


http://www.youtub...Q6kLlHdE&feature=channel_page

check it out!
nuge
5 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2009
Woah....definately have to disagree with Oliver K Manuel on his last important point, that "tit for tat has no place in science". I suggest: "tit for tat SHOULD have no place in science", as the history of science clearly proves you quite wrong on that one.
mantyvaara
5 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2009
Sometimes all this discussion & detail seems like Brownian motion to me.
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2009
NUGE IS RIGHT!

Woah....definately have to disagree with Oliver K Manuel on his last important point, that "tit for tat has no place in science". I suggest: "tit for tat SHOULD have no place in science", as the history of science clearly proves you quite wrong on that one.


Right!

Science is - like religion - a search for truths. The journey is very difficult or impossible if we are trapped in the ego cage of a two-year old.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
I did not mean to upset you.


You didn't. There is a difference between being upset and annoyed. I rarely get upset over things said in forums.

The neutron itself is therefore the minimum mass.


Not for the formation of a Neutron Star. Decay takes a loooong time. Are you claiming that the Sun has dumped at least a third of its initial mass?

Plus there is the question about hydrogen and other fusible matter falling onto a neutron star. So far it looks like it will fuse catastrophically.

The neutrino problem you mentioned in one your papers has been pretty well dealt with. Even early on it was intriguing that the neutrino count was one third the expected count. That coincides with the number of flavors of neutrinos. The problem early on was that neutrinos were thought to have no mass so there was no way for them to change flavor since they would not experience time just like a photon.

It is now known that they have mass. The exact mass is not yet known but is quite low for all three. Since they have mass they experience time. This makes its possible for them to change type. Since their mass-energy seems to be very low for all three and therefor fairly similar in terms of a few to a few dozen electron-volts Uncertainty would allow them to change types.

None of the detectors could detect all types of neutrino and most of them can only detect the electron-neutrino(or maybe its the electron-antineutrino). Because of this most people in that field now consider the Solar Neutrino Problem to not be a problem anymore. This may change with further experiments.

-------------------------------------------------


The debate with colleagues at the University of Chicago was actually quite civil.


I misread what you posted. Sorry about that.

http://www.physor...874.html

Well-established, well-funded scientists at the University of Chicago implied that I too was a fool when Science published our interpretation of the close association of primordial He with excess Xe-136 in the early solar system.


Though it seems you don't think they were all that nice. However its normal in physics discussions as far as I can tell. Peter Woit's site has some nasty stuff directed at him by some String thinkers. Cries of nonsense and utter nonsense seems to be traditional. Newton seems to have been particularly nasty.

"Tit for tat" has no place in science.


You are behind on psychology. Its been shown to be a sound strategy in various Prisoner's Dilemma studies. Game theory is also part of science but I don't think it covers the psychology just the probabilities.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
Explaination of the OneSimplePrinciple Model


I stopped watching when he claimed a neutron has infinite energy after a series of bullshit fallacies. If the neutron had infinite energy it would be infinitely heavy. Anyone going down that sort of path is clearly unable to think critically at any level of competence.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2009
Science is - like religion - a search for truths.

No, no it's not. Science is based on observation and measurement, while religion is based on faith. One requires and generates evidence while the other simply requires belief.
omatumr
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2009
Science is - like religion - a search for truths.


No, no it's not. Science is based on observation and measurement, while religion is based on faith. One requires and generates evidence while the other simply requires belief.


The common spiritual basis for science and religion: ""Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].

Truths can be discovered by measurements. Truths can also be discovered by meditation ["Be still and know that I am God," Psalm 46:10].

Organized religions, like organized science, are flawed because the leaders sometimes act selfishly, still trapped in the ego cage ["He is forever free who has broken out of the ego cage of I and mine . . . This is the supreme state. Attain thou this and pass from death to immortality," Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 2: ~70-72].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2009
Truths can also be discovered by meditation ["Be still and know that I am God," Psalm 46:10].


No. They can't. Period.

No evidence, no truth.

"He is forever free who has broken out of the ego cage of I and mine . . . This is the supreme state. Attain thou this and pass from death to immortality," Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 2: ~70-72].


Find me an immortal. Then you may speak again on this and call it true.

Crap is crap. Whether packaged as religion by Indians or by Christians. Or scientists that won't deal with the evidence.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
nuge
5 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2009
I like this Ethelred guy, he doesn't take any crap. Persistence personified.
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
Ethel,

In my youth I could have written the same message as you, with the same sense of certainty. Today I speak only from my personal experiences.

All of the insights that I have had - a supernova origin of the solar system, accretion of the Earth by layers, mass fractionation of atoms in the Sun and other stars, repulsive interactions between neutrons as a major source of energy in the cosmos, partial degassing of the upper mantle to form the Earth's crust and atmosphere, etc. - have been received like gifts when the mind was quiet.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09


It is my understanding that in s
nuge
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
Although, do you refer to King Ethelred the Unready? If so I'm not sure if your name suits you.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2009
In my youth I noticed that anthropologists and historians never looked at their own religion the way they looked at others. So I began to do that a bit at time.

You are only 11 years older than I am. So don't think I am some callow youth rebelling against his parents.


All of the insights that I have had - a supernova origin of the solar system,


The idea of supernova collapsing a nebula is nothing new to me. The details of you idea on this does not strike me as a brilliant insight since I really can't agree with it. It simply doesn't match what is going on in the Sun. We can see solar systems developing around a number of stars. We can see new stars forming out of cold nebulae. We can't see a single sign of stars forming on the husks of neutron stars.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman


accretion of the Earth by layers,


Or by impacts of bolides which seems more probable at least in later part of its development.

mass fractionation of atoms in the Sun and other stars,


Another insight that seems more than a bit dubious. You really need to read the work of physicists and see why they came to the conclusions they did.

repulsive interactions between neutrons as a major source of energy in the cosmos,


Sorry but that only applies in neutron stars and it does NOT produce energy. Fusion produces energy. Matter falling onto other matter releases energy that was generated by the fall. There is only so much energy that can be produced that way. Nothing even close to what fusion can produce.

partial degassing of the upper mantle to form the Earth's crust and atmosphere,


You had to meditate to learn what you could have read in dozens of books? Except for that idea of degassing producing the crust. Perhaps you didn't intend to write it that way or I am missing something. Outgassing produced at least some of the atmosphere but its kind of hard for gas to produce the crust. Impossible seems a better term.

I find thinking about things in the shower or while I am walking or running to catch the buss a use of the time, since I am not in training. But I do expect them to at least have some semblance to reality.

Yes at 58 I sometimes spend significant time running to catch a bus. Perhaps I should contemplate being late on the Tree of Woe. At least it keeps my standing heart rate below 70. Its under sixty as I sit typing this. Lower than I expected.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2009
Although, do you refer to King Ethelred the Unready?


No. Ethelred the Armourer. A character I created for a game. I needed a name that would sound like it was related to one of my brother's characters. I kinda forgot about The Unready One at the time.

I have used a variant name on the Maximum PC forum back when it was the Comport, Ethelred Hardrede. Hardrede came from Harald Hardrede who tried to take take England to go along with already being the king of Norway. He was killed at the Battle of Stamford Bridge one month before William the Bastard beat Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings, at least in part because Godwinson's mounted housecarls had been pretty much used up at Stamford Bridge.

Its a bit interesting to me how many people think it is a woman's name. Just how bloody many Ethels are around these days. I have only met one and she was a relative my mothers age.

And no I am not English. I live in California. I can hear the fireworks at Disneyland. I just like like spelling it armour because all the books I read on armour were British. Bloody is a way to avoid saying something that will get me fired. For some reason Bloody Hell is much more acceptable than .. oh, say, Fornicate the fertilizing penguin.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
tkjtkj
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
Its not often that any article stimulates such extensive discussioin! Kudo's to the author and the responders, who have maintained a high level of thought.
But:
"Another fine-tuning in the constants causes carbon, the foundation of life, to be abundant."
Statements such as this suggest a rather thinly-disguised 'religiosity', based merely on our own 'shape and structure' .. Yes, 'homo-centric' at its core.
"If we're here and are unique, there must be a reason for our uniqueness: lets call it 'god'"
Surely, science now recognizes that several other possible frameworks exist that are not carbon-based! And so it is likely that the other 'constants' or 'qualities' allow other forms , many capable of the same quasi-religious thinking.

j.a., md
tkjtkj@gmail.com
Velanarris
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
I have used a variant name on the Maximum PC forum back when it was the Comport, Ethelred Hardrede.


I knew your writing style was familiar.
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2009
CONTEMPT PRIOR TO INVESTIGATION

Check the derivation of E = mc^2

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

- Herbert Spencer
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2009
Velanarris

That was a long time ago. In fact it was where I developed my writing. Mostly in the Creation vs Evolution threads.

Then Civilization III came out and I found Apolyton.com. I have a lot of posts there as well. Over a thousand and that doesn't count the off topic area posts.

If you posted there did you use the same name?

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
omatumr

Check the derivation of E = mc^2


Would you care to be a little bit less cryptic. I am not going to try to guess at the intent of that. I am not even sure who that is aimed at. I suspect that no else has much of an idea either.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2009
Its not often that any article stimulates such extensive discussion! Kudo's to the author and the responders, who have maintained a high level of thought.

But:

"Another fine-tuning in the constants causes carbon, the foundation of life, to be abundant."

Statements such as this suggest a rather thinly-disguised 'religiosity', based merely on our own 'shape and structure' .. Yes, 'homo-centric' at its core.

"If we're here and are unique, there must be a reason for our uniqueness: lets call it 'god'"

Surely, science now recognizes that several other possible frameworks exist that are not carbon-based! And so it is likely that the other 'constants' or 'qualities' allow other forms , many capable of the same quasi-religious thinking.

j.a., md

tkjtkj@gmail.com



Thanks for your comment and for your concern about 'religiosity' dogmas creeping into scientific discussions. I share those concerns, although I am firmly convinced that there is NO conflict between spirituality and science.

The apparently high abundance of carbon (C), the foundation of life, and laboratory measurements on its production by fusion of Helium (He) actually confirmed mass separation of elements in the Sun and solved one of the two "serious difficulties in the most basic concepts of nuclear astrophysics" identified by Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler [CAULDRONS IN THE COSMOS: Nuclear Astrophysics by Claus E. Rolf and William S. Rodney (David N. Schramm, series editor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1988) page xi].

Professor Fowler questioned why the ratio of Oxygen (O) atoms to Carbon (C) atoms is only two (2) at the surface of the Sun when both laboratory and theoretical calculations predict a much higher value.

The problem is this: Carbon and Oxygen consist mostly of C-12 and O-16, three (3) and four (4) Helium-4 (He-4) nuclei fused together.

a.) 3 He-4 --> C-12

b.) 4 He-4 --> O-16

Laboratory measurements show that it is almost impossible to get three (3)

He-4 nuclei to fuse into C-12, but once that happens it is almost impossible to prevent the addition of another He-4 to make O-16.

The answer came by comparing neutron-capture cross sections with the abundances of 72 atoms that were produced by neutron-capture in the solar photosphere [Abstract 1033, 36th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX, 14-18 March 200] http://arxiv.org/...412502v1

The ANSWER: Because of solar mass fractionation O/C = 2 at the surface of the Sun but O/C = 10 for the bulk Sun.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
Velanarris
not rated yet Jun 16, 2009
Velanarris

That was a long time ago. In fact it was where I developed my writing. Mostly in the Creation vs Evolution threads.

Then Civilization III came out and I found Apolyton.com. I have a lot of posts there as well. Over a thousand and that doesn't count the off topic area posts.

If you posted there did you use the same name?

Ethelred

Nope, Phelan_Kell, also long long ago, probably 15 years by now.
omatumr
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2009
MEDITATION/CONTEMPLATION; TRY IT !

1. First class:

_Hydrogen (H) is element number 1 - the lightest of all elements.
_Helium (He) is element number 2 - the next lightest element.
_The visible solar surface is 91% H and 9% He.

Meditate on these facts.

2. Second class:

_Heat and a colorless gas are released when sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is added to Zinc (Zn)
_Lavoisier coined the name Hydrogen (H) for the colorless gas that is released.
_Heat and the same colorless gas, Hydrogen, are released by the Sun.

Meditate on these facts.

3. Third class:

_Lightweight isotopes of element #54 (Xe) are enriched in the solar wind.
_Lighter isotopes are systematically enriched by 3.5%/amu.
_The enrichment, E, matches 9 stages of diffusive mass fractionation:
E = [M(L)/M(H)]^4.5

Meditate on these facts.

I hope that these illustrations were helpful.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/

PS - If you enjoyed the exercise, use the above equation to calculate the enrichment of Hydrogen (H) relative to Iron (Fe) in the solar wind. H = 1 amu, Fe = 56 amu
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2009
CORRECTION

3. Third class:

_Lightweight isotopes of element #54 (Xe) are enriched in the solar wind.
_Lighter isotopes are systematically enriched by 3.5%/amu.
_The enrichment, E, matches 9 stages of diffusive mass fractionation:
CORRECTION HERE: -- > E = [M(H)/M(L)]^4.5

Therefore Hydrogen has been enriched relative to Iron in the solar wind by a factor of ~ (56/1)^4.5 = 74,000,000.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/


omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009
DEEP SLEEP - A DANGER OF MEDITATION

I should have cautioned everyone that deep sleep is sometimes induced by meditation.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/


Ethelred
not rated yet Jun 19, 2009
Nope, Phelan_Kell, also long long ago, probably 15 years by now


If it was that long ago you didn't see my posts. I first posted on Comport, as best as I can determine, in March or April 2000.

http://forums.pro...7882.202

http://forums.pro...18303.40

The top one might have my first post.

Ethelred

QubitTamer

Quantum Physicist, torturer of AGW religious zealots like Ethelred because i laugh at his hysterics.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jun 19, 2009

If it was that long ago you didn't see my posts. I first posted on Comport, as best as I can determine, in March or April 2000.



http://forums.pro...7882.202



The top one might have my first post.



Ethelred

Ha, gotta love old school creationist posts. "Lack of intermediary fossils".

More news stories

Study finds law dramatically curbing need for speed

Almost seven years have passed since Ontario's street-racing legislation hit the books and, according to one Western researcher, it has succeeded in putting the brakes on the number of convictions and, more importantly, injuries ...

Impact glass stores biodata for millions of years

(Phys.org) —Bits of plant life encapsulated in molten glass by asteroid and comet impacts millions of years ago give geologists information about climate and life forms on the ancient Earth. Scientists ...