Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

dj_420 · 27 August 2008

Wysiwyg said:
My turn
So we know how organic things create organic things, and we know that (not how exactly,explosions or something?) inorganic things create inorganic things.Yes.
What we don`t know is how inorganic things created this planet.For Pete`s sake don`t say God,Jim,Frederick or Samantha did it.

This has probably already been mentioned on this thread but Ill throw it in the mix.

There have been the experiments to show that inorganic reactions can lead to the creation of organic matter. The Urey Miller experiment used chemical conditions to recreate the early Archeaen Earth atmosphere, the experiment used water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, the mixture was heated and sparks introduced to simulate lightning. After a week of this experimentation the mixture was found to have created amino acids which are used as building blocks for proteins in living cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Pat · 27 August 2008

dj_420 said:
A lot of debate now on whether it actually was an meteorite impact that did wipe out the dinosaurs, this point was 65 million years ago and marks the boundary of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. The impact crater that has been identified is called Chicxulub in the region of Mexico.

The evidence that has recently been uncovered actually infers that the impact previously credited for this mass extinction event actually predates the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary by around 300 000 years. So what did wipe out the dinosaurs and 50% of biological life on earth?

The evidence paints a picture in which at the late stage of the Cretaceous there was a meteorite shower causing several impacts, Chicxulub been one of them. It has also been identified that at this stage Earth was undergoing incredible amount of volcanism called the Deccan Trap. This incredible increase in volcanic activity is credited to increasing the Earth greenhouse gas and causing global warming. The meteorite impacts may have been a straw that broke the camels back but the impact themselves was not a biological catastrophe.

Evidence found in drill core called Yaxcopoil-1 in the Chicxulub region where late Cretaceous planktic foraminifera assemblages have been found above the Chicxulub impact crater and below the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, which indicates that this impact alone did not cause the extinction of biological life.

Just thought I would add my two cents, only just started reading the thread.

Yeah I’ve read it was a combination of things, volcanic activity etc... Maybe that was caused by the meteor hit? 'They' say a large hit like should send shock waves around the world, combining in a mass on the other side of the world (there’s a word for it I’m not good with words). Some think the Siberian volcanic quagmire is a result of such a hit. They've also found what looks to be a crater on the other side of the world (from Siberia) of Australia’s coast. No proof just pure spec.

Fascinating

Pat · 27 August 2008

dj_420 said:
This has probably already been mentioned on this thread but Ill throw it in the mix.

There have been the experiments to show that inorganic reactions can lead to the creation of organic matter. The Urey Miller experiment used chemical conditions to recreate the early Archeaen Earth atmosphere, the experiment used water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, the mixture was heated and sparks introduced to simulate lightning. After a week of this experimentation the mixture was found to have created amino acids which are used as building blocks for proteins in living cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

I think he means how planets etc form?
Don’t know who, but some fella was playing around in space, he places some salt in a bag of water/fluid and shook it up to see what happened. To his amazement (and ours) the salt particles clung together, much like rocks/debris in space, this was filmed of course, when he showed his video to scientist back on Earth, stars lit up in their eyes. They say this is how planets, suns, moons formed. Particles seem to be attracted to each other in zero gravity.

However, I ask, why aren’t Saturn’s rings a moon?

Wysiwyg · 27 August 2008

dj_420 said:
Just thought I would add my two cents, only just started reading the thread.

Hi dj 420,You either have vast knowledge of Chicxulub and Cretaceous planktic foraminifera assemblages or it was quoted.If it is the former then post away mate as your accumulated knowledge and thoughts on the subject will be interesting.

dj_420 · 27 August 2008

Wysiwyg said:
Hi dj 420,You either have vast knowledge of Chicxulub and Cretaceous planktic foraminifera assemblages or it was quoted.If it is the former then post away mate as your accumulated knowledge and thoughts on the subject will be interesting.

Haha, I have just started a Paleontology subject this Semester at Uni, so I am learning a lot about foraminifera and their place in study of fossils.

But yes I have learnt a lot about Chicxulub over the past few weeks.

Wysiwyg · 27 August 2008

Pat said:
I think he means how planets etc form?

Hi Pat, life on this planet began at some point in what we call time.that experiment is from the 1950`s and I can`t find any follow up.Maybe it was laughed off in that era or maybe the LHC is the more conclusive experiment to reveal more Truth about first life.

dj_420 · 27 August 2008

Pat said:
However, I ask, why aren’t Saturn’s rings a moon?

I assume from organic Wysywig meant lifeforms, the formation of planets is actually a lot easier to study than the origin of life. There is a lot more knowledgable science on formation of planets than the origin of life. As for the rings on Saturn I have not studied much on that yet BUT on an assumption I would guess at:

1) Either they are particles or debris leftover from the original formation of the planet that never formed into a moon and remained in orbit around the planet, or

2) Debris from an meteorite hitting Saturn and sending debris into the orbit

The fact that they have remained as these rings surrounding the planet may be a result of the gravitational pull. I am not too sure, I will have a read of it tonight.

dj_420 · 27 August 2008

Pat said:
I think he means how planets etc form?
Don’t know who, but some fella was playing around in space, he places some salt in a bag of water/fluid and shook it up to see what happened. To his amazement (and ours) the salt particles clung together, much like rocks/debris in space, this was filmed of course, when he showed his video to scientist back on Earth, stars lit up in their eyes. They say this is how planets, suns, moons formed. Particles seem to be attracted to each other in zero gravity.

I dont know how that actually works, the effects from space I am not to sure. Back here on Earth when salt is placed in water the ionic bonding is broken down and it forms Na+ and Cl- in solution both of which are toxic in their pure elemental form but are fine as ions.

I do not know why the effect of space would have that effect on salt, as if that were the case the salt would attract together and sink to the bottom of the ocean due to gravity. Might not have been water he put the salt into.

2020hindsight · 27 August 2008

dj_420 said:
A lot of debate now on whether it actually was an meteorite impact that did wipe out the dinosaurs, this point was 65 million years ago and marks the boundary of the Cretaceous and the Tertiary. The impact crater that has been identified is called Chicxulub in the region of Mexico.

The evidence that has recently been uncovered actually infers that the impact previously credited for this mass extinction event actually predates the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary by around 300 000 years. So what did wipe out the dinosaurs and 50% of biological life on earth?.........

Just thought I would add my two cents, only just started reading the thread.

great stuff dj
give you a stack of 20 cents for that one lol.

I'm guessing you'll agree that 300K years is fairly trivial wrt 65,000K (i.e. < 0.5%), but fascinating that fossils point to (some) dinosaurs surviving the asteroid itself.

Amazing yes? the accuracy of these 'calls' - assuming they are accurate. The ability of man to deduce what happened where - and roughly when .

Still, the bottom line there - the point Phillip Adams was making I believe (and I may have misquoted him slightly - it was just a quick interview after all) - was that only the coincidence of the combination of asteroid-plus-volcanics-etc meant that man had the opportunity to evolve. Probably it's still true that without that asteroid, we'd never have been able to displace them for instance

2020hindsight · 27 August 2008

Pat, you were talking about redshift... I just think of it as the doppler effect as observed by the eyes instead of the ears (doppler effect being the change in pitch as a formula 1 racecar goes past)

Doppler effect also used in speed radar guns apparently..

... good wiki on it ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Any increase in wavelength is called "redshift", even if it occurs in electromagnetic radiation of non-optical wavelengths, such as gamma rays, x-rays and ultraviolet. This nomenclature might be confusing since, at wavelengths longer than red (e.g., infrared, microwaves, and radio waves), redshifts shift the radiation away from the red wavelengths.

An observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from the observer, corresponding to the Doppler shift that changes the perceived frequency of sound waves. Although observing such redshifts, or complementary blue shifts, has several terrestrial applications (e.g., Doppler radar and radar guns),[1] spectroscopic astrophysics uses Doppler redshifts to determine the movement of distant astronomical objects.[2] This phenomenon was first predicted and observed in the 19th century as scientists began to consider the dynamical implications of the dual wave-particle nature of light.

Another cause of redshift is the expansion of the universe, which explains the observation that the redshifts of distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds increase in proportion to their distance from the earth. This mechanism is a key feature of the Big Bang model of physical cosmology.

I also posted something on it in #117 , cheers

2020hindsight · 28 August 2008

Pat · 28 August 2008

Wysiwyg said:
Hi Pat, life on this planet began at some point in what we call time.that experiment is from the 1950`s and I can`t find any follow up.Maybe it was laughed off in that era or maybe the LHC is the more conclusive experiment to reveal more Truth about first life.

Do you mean DJ's experiment he posted? I call that the spark in the bottle test. I think we need squillions of years to follow that through if you know what I mean, any explanation we provide for anything is a hypothesis IMO.

What I posted was discovered in the 80's, I think on the space shuttle. I'll post my findings when I'm not at work.

dj_420 said:
I assume from organic Wysywig meant lifeforms, the formation of planets is actually a lot easier to study than the origin of life. There is a lot more knowledgable science on formation of planets than the origin of life. As for the rings on Saturn I have not studied much on that yet BUT on an assumption I would guess at:

1) Either they are particles or debris leftover from the original formation of the planet that never formed into a moon and remained in orbit around the planet, or

2) Debris from an meteorite hitting Saturn and sending debris into the orbit

The fact that they have remained as these rings surrounding the planet may be a result of the gravitational pull. I am not too sure, I will have a read of it tonight.

I thought Wys was asking how it all formed without life....

What we don’t know is how inorganic things created this planet

The question is how/why this 'matter' amalgamates to become a planet/sun/moon (god can't be the reason as per Wys ). Why don't clouds of gas disperse into the void? Why do they stay clouds, clouds aren’t dense enough to create gravity are they?
Perhaps the 'god particle' will explain this as Wys posted above.
I'm sure you'll learn of this in your studies. I haven’t studied this, just come across it in my readings.
It all boils down to the sub atomic particles. They make the rules of the universe. Or seem too.

dj_420 said:
I dont know how that actually works, the effects from space I am not to sure. Back here on Earth when salt is placed in water the ionic bonding is broken down and it forms Na+ and Cl- in solution both of which are toxic in their pure elemental form but are fine as ions.

I do not know why the effect of space would have that effect on salt, as if that were the case the salt would attract together and sink to the bottom of the ocean due to gravity. Might not have been water he put the salt into.

Forget salt DJ...its MATTER and ZERO GRAVITY.
Matter seems to be attracted to matter in zero gravity. Particles seem to cling to each other when the come close.
BBC's "The Planets" is a great doco and the visuals make understanding this alot easier...

Pat · 28 August 2008

2020hindsight said:
Pat, you were talking about redshift... I just think of it as the doppler effect as observed by the eyes instead of the ears (doppler effect being the change in pitch as a formula 1 racecar goes past)

Doppler effect also used in speed radar guns apparently..

... good wiki on it ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

I also posted something on it in #117 , cheers

Thanks 2020, But doesn't red shift also occur as light passes near gravity? (gravity stretching the wave length) I was under the understanding that Einsteins hypothesis was proved this way. I was just thinking if gravity can stretch a wavelength it should also be able to compress it.

Understand the doppler effect, the coppers use Lidar guns.

dj_420 · 28 August 2008

Pat said:
Forget salt DJ...its MATTER and ZERO GRAVITY.
Matter seems to be attracted to matter in zero gravity. Particles seem to cling to each other when the come close.
BBC's "The Planets" is a great doco and the visuals make understanding this alot easier...

Atoms can be joined in a variety of ways, the salt atoms will bond through ionic bonding which is an electrostatic attraction, one ion has a positive charge and the other a negative.

My point is that I assume salt would dissolve in water regardless of gravity or zero gravity. I do not understand how the particles would be retained and clump together, thats why I questioned what the liquid actually was.

Regarding planet forming it takes billions of years of all these elements all swirling is a massive whirlpool effect to begin forming what we would know as Earth. Even when Earth was first formed it was thought to be a molten mass of magma, the Earth had to cool down for a long time before rocks could even form out of the big molten ball.

Pat · 28 August 2008

dj_420 said:
Atoms can be joined in a variety of ways, the salt atoms will bond through ionic bonding which is an electrostatic attraction, one ion has a positive charge and the other a negative.

My point is that I assume salt would dissolve in water regardless of gravity or zero gravity. I do not understand how the particles would be retained and clump together, thats why I questioned what the liquid actually was.

Regarding planet forming it takes billions of years of all these elements all swirling is a massive whirlpool effect to begin forming what we would know as Earth. Even when Earth was first formed it was thought to be a molten mass of magma, the Earth had to cool down for a long time before rocks could even form out of the big molten ball.

Where not combining atoms, mearly arranging matter together. No chemical reaction takes place (in theory).

For eg, say you had some sand from the beach, dust from the desert and soil from the rain forrest. If you where in zero gravity, and placed these substances in a bag of clear fluid and shook it up. What would happen is you'd have some pretty muddy fluid, but over time (minutes), the particles clump together in balls. Eventually you have balls of sand, dust and soil suspended in a clear fluid.

Much like the astronauts playing with their liquid food in space, floating around the space shuttle eating little balls of tasty mush. (I assume it tastes good, I don't like space food sticks though)

They say this is the best explanation for the creation of planets etc.

Pat · 28 August 2008

dj_420 said:
I do not understand how the particles would be retained and clump together, thats why I questioned what the liquid actually was.

In regard to this, we don't understand, the liquid was used only provided a medium for the experiment to take place. There is video evidence too, I'm sure YouTube would have it, but i'm at work and cannot access that site.

Imagine a universe that arranges it self in quirky ways. So many questions, so much to fathom .

2020hindsight · 28 August 2008

Pat said:
Thanks 2020, But doesn't red shift also occur as light passes near gravity? (gravity stretching the wave length) I was under the understanding that Einsteins hypothesis was proved this way. I was just thinking if gravity can stretch a wavelength it should also be able to compress it...

Pat - spot on - you're ahead of me again lol - more reading req'd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Gravitational redshift is observed if the receiver is located at higher gravitational potential than the source. The cause of gravitational redshift is the time dilation that occurs near massive objects, according to general relativity

Pat · 28 August 2008

2020hindsight said:
Pat - spot on - you're ahead of me again lol - more reading req'd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

It's all too confusing and I find it hard to grasp the finer detail to complete the big picture. However I'm sure all scientists would feel the same as they try to explain the unknown/missing pieces to the puzzle.
I'm also 100% positive that any answers we find from the massive particle accelerator will only pose more, seemingly unanswerable questions.

spooly74 · 28 August 2008

Wysiwyg said:
The multi-billion euro LHC "experiment" is nearing it`s moment of truth.A few of us here will be interested in the findings and i hope they explain things in laymans terms.Higgs bosun.

Here is a good series on the Higgs et all. It's 7 years old but a good lecture on why and how they are looking for this field.

The Mystery of Empty Space (1 of 5)

Pat · 28 August 2008

spooly74 said:
Here is a good series on the Higgs et all. It's 7 years old but a good lecture on why and how they are looking for this field.

The Mystery of Empty Space (1 of 5)

Great find spooly, awesome!!! To late to watch the other 4 vids, till tomorrow night.
Since I was a kid I've always loved to take things apart to see how they work. LOL

I've posted this before -
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
Its a great read from Nat Geo Mag and has helped me understand this "mess" just a little bit more . More laymans terms.

Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

dj_420

Pat

Pat

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

dj_420

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

dj_420

dj_420

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

Attachments

Pat

Pat

dj_420

Pat

Pat

2020hindsight

Pat

spooly74

Pat

Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

Everyone wants money

Everyone wants money

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency