Slashdot Mirror
Solar System's Water Is Older Than the Sun
astroengine writes Next time you're swimming in the ocean, consider this: part of the water is older than the sun. So concludes a team of scientists who ran computer models comparing the ratios of hydrogen isotopes over time. Taking into account new insights that the solar nebula had less ionizing radiation than previously thought, the models show that at least some of the water found in the ocean, as well as in comets, meteorites and on the moon, predate the sun's birth.
For anything in the solar system to be YOUNGER than the sun, it would have to be MADE by the sun, or as a byproduct of the sun achieving fusion. Our planet is younger than the sun itself, but the elements that comprise it are much, much older.
If our solar systems water is older than the sun why does my bottle of Fiji expire in a year? :)
I believe that they are only considering the water molecules: the hydrogen atoms which make up water will be as old as the Big Bang. However since there are ice-based comets out there I hardly find it surprising that there was water in the solar system before the sun formed. Aren't the comets supposed to be the left over debris from the formation of the sun and planets? So this result seems to be just confirmation what we already knew.
The heavy elements on our planet and in your body were creation via fusion in another star, which has already long since died, exploded, and been recycled.
We can do better than that. Based on the current ratio of Uranium-235 and 238 which are created in roughly equal quantities by a supernova we can date the super nova preceding the solar system to about 6 billion years ago. It's also interesting to note that had intelligent life evolved a billion or more years earlier than it did that the uranium ore we dig out of the ground would be weapon's grade without any complex enrichment process required. So there might be a limit on intelligent life evolving too soon after the formation of a planet.
The main component of wood is cellulose, a polysaccharide consisting of building blocks of six carbon atoms, ten hydrogens and five oxygen atoms.
Take one of those C6H10O5 building blocks an burn it completely with 6 O2 molecules, and you get 6 CO2 molecules and 5 brand-spanking new water molecules.
Of course real wood fires release other byproducts as well, carbon monoxide and soot, which are particles of mostly amorphous carbon. But water is definitely a byproduct of burning, just as it is a byproduct of respiration by organisms.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Several years ago: http://science.slashdot.org/st... http://science.slashdot.org/st...
I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides.
No, you're perfectly clear on it, you simply choose to lie. If you had an equivalent breakdown of eyewitness reports of a crime, with very high correlation between them and correspondence between the theory of what transpired, you would accept it as evidence without question. I understand you had the foresight to stack the deck that the evidence must specifically require speaking to additional supposed attributes of your conceptualization, but in fact, that is wholly unrequired to serve as evidence of the question at hand. Really, you probably should have added "who has a beard" at the end, you'd pre-exclude for yourself more even earlier, with your odd conceptualization that anyone thinks that's the relevant question rather than "is there a God or an afterlife of the manner claimed by that"?
I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion.
Fair enough. Feel free to do so. I'll wait, and Natural Selection will take care of you for me. No need to argue.
To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions.
Sure. So, one takes alternate forms of analysis, such as internal consistency of the defining writings of the worldview, successful predictions of future events, references from external secular sources, and personal spiritual experiences by which to narrow the field of plausibility. It is not by happenstance a very few have survived, and the rest long-dismissed. It's because they are -better-. They are more plausible, and that in no way excludes a particular one from being true. I'm sure, following standard argument here, you are very happy to share with us the superiority of your evaluation that they are all equivalent over millions of people who have concluded they are not. That stance, however, won't be rational. It does, however, fit harmoniously in its irrationality with your assertion that because you've been given one set of supporting information, that is therefore the only support that exists. An endless supply of personal accounts and arguments based on philosophical or scientific implausibility is a Google search away. And no, that you don't accept them a-priori, or they don't constitute "proof" for you and thus put you in a situation of immediate, forced conversion, in no way alters the fact they are evidence.
At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!
You were given genuine, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. You'll need to do your next step here and construct he necessary formulation of the scope of "science" needed to be sure to exclude a peer-reviewed study, authored by multiple PhD's, published by probably the leading medical journal of Europe. Go ahead, I have time. Just don't take too long, because the standard equivocations and dances around this shouldn't take long with Google available.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
It is your claim that is extraordinary. The majority of the planet is theist. That's what "ordinary" means. Your erroneous rendering of what "extraordinary" means is entirely personal, subjective, and spurious. I don't find it "extraordinary" at all. For me, based on my experiences, it is simply fact.
All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.
Yes, you have. You have dozens of them from this study alone. Unless you want to assert the eyewitnesses were lying, or the scientific methodology incorrect. Note up-front that the peer review process has already addressed this, so do consider it even if you feel yourself qualified to override that by fiat in
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
You might consider this strange, but none of the people resurrected in the Bible make any reference at all related to their experiences after death. The closest thing you would find related to this topic is the account of the rich man and Lazarus, who both died and were in Hades, the rich man in torment, and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom. The rich man wanted to send a message to his relatives so that they would not end up in torment like him and was told, they have Moses and the prophets (i.e., they were not going to get another revelation from a dead man), and nether would they believe if one rose from the dead.
In short, the Bible denies the near-death experience as a means of religious experience and knowledge.