Origins and Mental Activity
Zoe
activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
-- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
(maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
N H C C He N O
O C O Li
H N C O
O N Li H He
C C He
H N C O C N
He
O O O H N He C H
N C H N N H O Li O
Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
anything more unified than the separate elements?
If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
intelligence.
Any takers?
John Harshman
> I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>
> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
As usual, you begin with a false premise. We do indeed know how the
elements formed after the big bang. Some of them result from fusion in
stars, and others as a result of nucleosynthesis in supernovae.
> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
Again, you guess wrong. Most of these elements would be clumped together
in stars, planets, and gas clouds. They would not be randomly distributed.
> N H C C He N O
> O C O Li
> H N C O
> O N Li H He
> C C He
> H N C O C N
> He
> O O O H N He C H
>
> N C H N N H O Li O
>
>
> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
> anything more unified than the separate elements?
No. Before the formation of stars there would be almost nothing but H
and He.
> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
> intelligence.
>
> Any takers?
GIGO.
Ken Rode
It seems extremely dubious to me that heavier elements, like O, N and
C, would be found randomly distributed throughout the universe,
particularly not if they are produced in stars. Much more likely that
they would be found in decidely non-random distributions in the
vicinities of galaxies. (If we're talking production in stars, then I
suspect that galaxies in some form also existed way back then.)
Personally, my money is riding on physics and chemistry.
josephus
matter. not elements per se. the big bang started out as quarks and
those are the building blocks of matter. when the fire ball cooled
enough then ions precipitated. then as the temperature fell varous
quarks formed antimater and matter in various proportions. the creation
and destruction of these varous things contributed to the plasma.
eventually it cooled enough the hidrogen and helieum were precipitated.
after the universe became transparent for radiation. the vaious
clouds of H and He formed the first stars. the only two elements to
start with were H and He and a smattering of Li. the stars produced
the remainder not the big bang.
only after the stars produced the other elements would we se the list
of emements you list.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
Rolf
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:p679i3dc32d0sgfcj...@4ax.com...
No.
Only questions, like "what are the laws of intelligence", and what are their
relevance for physics and chemistry? Organic AND inorganic matter, what kind
of question is that?
Isn't it a fact that we already have quite well worked out theories about
how the universe has evolved since the BB? Maybe we don't know for certain
why matter is not uniformly distributed throughout the entire universe, but
we know that it is not - and that accounts for all the rest.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
> at some point after the Big Bang,
It's isn't, but...
> I would like to see which theory
> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
> intelligence.
>
> Any takers?
"Which theory"? Huh?
If you're asking for an introduction to cosmology, you'd probably want to
start with wikipedia's "Big Bang" entry, followed by the first few
chapters of Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_. That's going to be a
much better use of your time that having several people reproduce all of
that information here piecemeal.
Or is this what you're looking for?
Cosmic Structure Formation and Dynamics: Numerical Simulations Linking the
Hierarchical Structure of the Universe
Abstract:
By implementing hydrodynamical and magnetohydrodynamical codes to the
Earth Simulator, we carried out numerical simulations of cosmic structure
formation and dynamics including interactions between sub-systems and the
whole system. We present the results of high-resolution (10243 grid)
hydrodynamical simulations of the formation of a galaxy based on the
bottom-up scenario, in which a galaxy is built up by an assemblage of a
numerous sub-galactic systems. We showed that heavy elements ejected by
supernova explosions chemically enrich the forming massive galaxy. In
addition to the hydrodynamical coupling, magnetic processes can link-up
the hierarchical structures of the universe. Prototypes of such magnetic
interactions can be found in solar atmospheres. We carried out
three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of magnetic energy
transport from the solar convection zone to the corona. When an emerging
twisted flux tube interacts with overlying coronal magnetic fields,
strong twist is injected into the open coronal fields by magnetic
reconnection. As a result of this process, shear Alfven waves propagate
upward. This mechanism could cause coronal jets and coronal mass
ejections. Finally, we briefly discuss prospects for future simulations.
http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/publication/annual/annual2003/pdf/project/chapter4/4-09matsumoto.pdf
or
The Earth Simulator was the fastest computer on the planet for quite a
while, but this is the first paper I've run across that used it. Neat
stuff.
Zoe
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Zoe wrote:
>
>> I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
>> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>>
>> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
>> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
>> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
>> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>
>As usual, you begin with a false premise. We do indeed know how the
>elements formed after the big bang. Some of them result from fusion in
>stars, and others as a result of nucleosynthesis in supernovae.
my premise, which we both agree on, is that elements made their
appearance at some point after the big bang. Come on, John, do try
not to get sidetracked by peripherals. There is no premise on the
table right now that contends that you absolutely don't know how
elements were formed.
I am starting at a point where the elements are already present.
>
>> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
>> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
>> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>
>Again, you guess wrong. Most of these elements would be clumped together
>in stars, planets, and gas clouds. They would not be randomly distributed.
before they "clumped" together, they would first be separate and
randomly distributed, right? If you want to put this random
distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
>
>> N H C C He N O
>> O C O Li
>> H N C O
>> O N Li H He
>> C C He
>> H N C O C N
>> He
>> O O O H N He C H
>>
>> N C H N N H O Li O
>>
>>
>> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>
>No. Before the formation of stars there would be almost nothing but H
>and He.
you seem to want to avoid the existence of the elements. Why? I am
at the point where you say that elements formed in supernovas or gas
clouds. Can we work from there?
>
>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>> intelligence.
>>
>> Any takers?
>
>GIGO.
exactly. Now would you kindly introduce something more than garbage
objections, please?
Zoe
wrote:
thank you for the pre-history, Josephus, but I am starting at a point
after the elements formed. Can we work from there?
Zoe
wrote:
okay, I'll revise the location of the elements. I am agreeing with
you that the above elements are first produced and located in or near
"stars".
Now, if you think the elements emerged in non-random distribution, are
you saying that they reacted instantly with each other as they were
produced so that you never found single atoms anywhere in the star's
vicinity, but instead there was a medley of phosphates and sugars and
H2Os and nucleotides and the like?
>
>Personally, my money is riding on physics and chemistry.
my money is also riding on physics and chemistry, except I don't know
how far it will go. My bet is that physics and chemistry will run out
of cash.
SeppoP
I'm quite sure Zoe understood about 3-7 words of the above abstract... :)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Ken Rode
Ye gods in Valhalla! No! How on earth did you get that from what I
said?
> >Personally, my money is riding on physics and chemistry.
>
> my money is also riding on physics and chemistry, except I don't know
> how far it will go. My bet is that physics and chemistry will run out
> of cash.
I'm also betting that intelligence is flat broke in this regard.
Bob D
Have I missed something, Zoe? The 'Laws of Intelligence'??? What are
these and how do they function?
The well understood mechanisms of physics and chemistry do seem to
account for the presently observed elements and their compounds. As
well as their distribution. What is the problem, Zoe?
> Any takers?
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> Now, if you think the elements emerged in non-random distribution, are
> you saying that they reacted instantly with each other as they were
> produced so that you never found single atoms anywhere in the star's
> vicinity, but instead there was a medley of phosphates and sugars and
> H2Os and nucleotides and the like?
Oh, you're interested in interstellar chemistry (astrochemistry). After a
bit of poking around I wasn't able to find any introductory material --
wikipedia finally let me down --, but the following might be worth skimming:
Here are the chemicals that have been detected in space so far (as far as
wikipedia knows)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_in_interstellar_space
NASA has a whole lab devoted to astrochemistry.
And here is a taste of the literature.
<title>
Organic Molecules in the Interstellar Medium, Comets, and Meteorites: A
Voyage from Dark Clouds to the Early Earth
</title>
<abstract>
Our understanding of the evolution of organic molecules, and their voyage
from molecular clouds to the early solar system and Earth, has changed
dramatically. Incorporating recent observational results from the ground
and space, as well as laboratory simulation experiments and new methods
for theoretical modeling, this review recapitulates the inventory and
distribution of organic molecules in different environments. The
evolution, survival, transport, and transformation of organics is
monitored, from molecular clouds and the diffuse interstellar medium to
their incorporation into solar system material such as comets and
meteorites. We constrain gas phase and grain surface formation pathways to
organic molecules in dense interstellar clouds, using recent observations
with the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) and ground-based
radiotelescopes. The main spectroscopic evidence for carbonaceous
compounds in the diffuse interstellar medium is discussed (UV bump at 2200
Å, diffuse interstellar bands, extended red emission, and infrared
absorption and emission bands). We critically review the signatures and
unsolved problems related to the main organic components suggested to be
present in the diffuse gas, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), fullerenes, diamonds, and carbonaceous solids. We also briefly
discuss the circumstellar formation of organics around late-type stars. In
the solar system, space missions to comet Halley and observations of the
bright comets Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp have recently allowed a
reexamination of the organic chemistry of dust and volatiles in
long-period comets. We review the advances in this area and also discuss
progress being made in elucidating the complex organic inventory of
carbonaceous meteorites. The knowledge of organic chemistry in molecular
clouds, comets, and meteorites and their common link provides constraints
for the processes that lead to the origin, evolution, and distribution of
life in the Galaxy.
</abstract>
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.427
or
<title>
The chemistry in circumstellar envelopes of evolved stars: Following the
origin of the elements to the origin of life
</title>
<abstract>
Mass loss from evolved stars results in the formation of unusual chemical
laboratories: circumstellar envelopes. Such envelopes are found around
carbon- and oxygen-rich asymptotic giant branch stars and red supergiants.
As the gaseous material of the envelope flows from the star, the resulting
temperature and density gradients create a complex chemical environment
involving hot, thermodynamically controlled synthesis, molecule
"freeze-out," shock-initiated reactions, and photochemistry governed by
radical mechanisms. In the circumstellar envelope of the carbon-rich star
IRC+10216, >50 different chemical compounds have been identified,
including such exotic species as C8H, C3S, SiC3, and AlNC. The chemistry
here is dominated by molecules containing long carbon chains, silicon, and
metals such as magnesium, sodium, and aluminum, which makes it quite
distinct from that found in molecular clouds. The molecular composition of
the oxygen-rich counterparts is not nearly as well explored, although
recent studies of VY Canis Majoris have resulted in the identification of
HCO+, SO2, and even NaCl in this object, suggesting chemical complexity
here as well. As these envelopes evolve into planetary nebulae with a hot,
exposed central star, synthesis of molecular ions becomes important, as
indicated by studies of NGC 7027. Numerous species such as HCO+, HCN, and
CCH are found in old planetary nebulae such as the Helix. This "survivor"
molecular material may be linked to the variety of compounds found
recently in diffuse clouds. Organic molecules in dense interstellar clouds
may ultimately be traced back to carbon-rich fragments originally formed
in circumstellar shells.
</abstract>
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/collection/interstellar_chem
<snip>
R. Baldwin
> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>
> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>
> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>
> N H C C He N O
> O C O Li
> H N C O
> O N Li H He
> C C He
> H N C O C N
> He
> O O O H N He C H
>
> N C H N N H O Li O
>
>
> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
> anything more unified than the separate elements?
No, that is not a correct understanding. Stars came before most of the
elements.
>
> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
> intelligence.
>
That was never the physical state of the Universe, and there are no "laws of
intelligence."
> Any takers?
>
Mujin
news:fac9i31f18svo2dfo...@4ax.com:
No. Initially there would have been nothing but H and He. These would
have been randomly distributed, but there would have been regions of higher
density than others (since it's random) and gravitational forces would have
resulted in greater and greater clumping around these high density areas,
exacerbating the clumping/density until the density was enough to form
nebulae and finally stars.
Only when stars began forming would the conditions have been right for H
and He to undergo fusion, producing the next few elements in line. So
*far* from being randomly distributed, elements heavier than H and He could
not have existed elsewhere than within stars and in their immediate
vicinity.
> If you want to put this random
> distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
> that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
> elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
But this is just the point. Basically no theory I know of proposes that at
any point in the history of the universe is it likely that heavy elements
were distributed in the way you propose except very temporarily immediately
after a supernova.
IANA Astronomer, and I don't play one on TV, but ISTM that your proposed
"starting point" isn't one that anyone actually thinks might have existed.
Zoe
wrote:
I beg your pardon if I misinterpreted. What exactly are you saying
when you say that elements would be found in decidely non-random
distributions in the vicinities of galaxies? Did you mean that they
emerged immediately as compounds and not as random elements?
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:04:09 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Now, if you think the elements emerged in non-random distribution, are
>> you saying that they reacted instantly with each other as they were
>> produced so that you never found single atoms anywhere in the star's
>> vicinity, but instead there was a medley of phosphates and sugars and
>> H2Os and nucleotides and the like?
>
>Oh, you're interested in interstellar chemistry (astrochemistry). After a
>bit of poking around I wasn't able to find any introductory material --
>wikipedia finally let me down --, but the following might be worth skimming:
>
>
>Here are the chemicals that have been detected in space so far (as far as
>wikipedia knows)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_in_interstellar_space
nice....but you are already into compounds, whereas I'm back at the
production of individual elements before they react with each other.
What laws of physics and chemistry state that the elements, NO,
nitrogen and oxygen, will always be linked together to form nitric
oxide and not, say, HNCO, Isocyanic acid? There are no such laws,
right?
heavy stuff, Garamond. Could we start back, please, at the more basic
area of element formation? What is chemistry capable of producing
when you have a pool of individual elements?
Zoe
no? You just took....
>
>Only questions, like "what are the laws of intelligence", and what are their
>relevance for physics and chemistry? Organic AND inorganic matter, what kind
>of question is that?
not a question; a mental exercise.
>Isn't it a fact that we already have quite well worked out theories about
>how the universe has evolved since the BB? Maybe we don't know for certain
>why matter is not uniformly distributed throughout the entire universe, but
>we know that it is not - and that accounts for all the rest.
Rolf, this is merely an exercise in which you can utilize your
knowledge base. You don't have to play if you don't want to, you
know.
Zoe
you are just about right, Seppo.....
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:56:00 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>> at some point after the Big Bang,
>
>It's isn't, but...
>
>> I would like to see which theory
>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>> intelligence.
>>
>> Any takers?
>
>"Which theory"? Huh?
>
>If you're asking for an introduction to cosmology, you'd probably want to
>start with wikipedia's "Big Bang" entry, followed by the first few
>chapters of Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_. That's going to be a
>much better use of your time that having several people reproduce all of
>that information here piecemeal.
I am not looking for an introduction to cosmology. I'm looking for
your personal application of the data to origins. And I do have the
book, The Elegant Universe, of which I've read portions. Also just
got through reading Jacob's ladder by Gee. The game now is how to
apply the various data to origins.
lots of big words which, if vaulted over, seem to be saying that in
the area of theoretical physics, simulations are run based on
speculations about dark matter and its gravitational potential. And
from this assumed potential, ideas can be formed as to how the stars
and galaxies and galaxy clusters came to be.
However, I would like to concentrate on just one supposed supernova
that supposedly has spewed out the various elements. What is the next
step after the elements come into existence?
Ken Rode
I'm sorry--I used a term that you don't relate to. All that I meant to
say was that atoms of elements heavier than H and He would be more
likely to be found in quite specific locations in space. Specifically,
heavier elements are far more likely to be found close to stars than
distant from stars.
Zoe
wrote:
see past threads.
>The well understood mechanisms of physics and chemistry do seem to
>account for the presently observed elements and their compounds. As
>well as their distribution. What is the problem, Zoe?
no problem....yet. I am at the point where elements are in existence.
What is there in the laws of physics and chemistry that determine how
the elements combine?
Perplexed in Peoria
> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>
> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>
> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>
> N H C C He N O
> O C O Li
> H N C O
> O N Li H He
> C C He
> H N C O C N
> He
> O O O H N He C H
>
> N C H N N H O Li O
>
>
> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
> anything more unified than the separate elements?
Pretty close to correct. But lets add just a little detail just to make sure
we are on the same page. Just after the Big Bang, there wasn't much
but H and He. Then the first generation of stars formed and eventually
went super-nova. Now you have some C, some O, some Fe, and
traces of all the other stuff. In the second and later generations of
stars, you get planets too, because the Fe and the ices formed from
compounds like CO and H2O provide dust grains which stick together
in the nebula and eventually grow big enough to become planetesimals.
But, looking at the universe as a whole, it is still 98% H and He, even
though the other stuff is most common on Earth-sized planets.
> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
> intelligence.
>
> Any takers?
Sure. Though I admit I haven't really followed your writings on the
'laws of intelligence'.
My version of the story is a little farther along than yours. I already
have simple chemical compounds like H2O, CO, CO2, HCN, and CH4,
plus some iron and silicates. We can start there, or we can back up to
just a bunch of atoms. Your choice.
Mark VandeWettering
> I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>
> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
The formation of elements other than hydrogen and helium aren't
particularly less mysterious or more uncertain than hydrogen and helium.
Roughly speaking, Light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) were
formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang. Heavier elements (through
iron) were formed by fusion processes in stars. Even heavier elements
by neutron capture in massive stars, or through novas.
> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>
> N H C C He N O
> O C O Li
> H N C O
> O N Li H He
> C C He
> H N C O C N
> He
> O O O H N He C H
>
> N C H N N H O Li O
The distribution isn't close to correct.
> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
> anything more unified than the separate elements?
No.
> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
> intelligence.
I tell you what: you go first. Tell us how this soup of letters
becomes you via the laws of intelligence.
> Any takers?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
No. They wouldn't be. Because elements like carbon can only be formed
by fusing lighter elements, and the only place that can occur is in
dense regions of hydrogen and helium (i.e. inside stars).
> If you want to put this random
> distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
> that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
> elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
>
>
>>
>>> N H C C He N O
>>> O C O Li
>>> H N C O
>>> O N Li H He
>>> C C He
>>> H N C O C N
>>> He
>>> O O O H N He C H
>>>
>>> N C H N N H O Li O
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>>
>>No. Before the formation of stars there would be almost nothing but H
>>and He.
>
> you seem to want to avoid the existence of the elements.
Other than hydrogen and helium, they didn't exist before stars formed.
> Why? I am
> at the point where you say that elements formed in supernovas or gas
> clouds. Can we work from there?
When they form, they aren't randomly distributed.
>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>> intelligence.
>>>
>>> Any takers?
>>
>>GIGO.
>
> exactly. Now would you kindly introduce something more than garbage
> objections, please?
Premise. The premise was garbage. The universe isn't a gas of unorganized
elements.
Mark
SeppoP
You *really* ought to start from the very basics:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence>
is a good start. Follow the references in section *Valence in molecules, atoms, or subatomic particles* for further
reading (forget the subatomic particles for now).
Managerial overview: Forming of chemical bonds is an extremely well known and understood mechanism which is
described by "valence bond theory" in chemistry (and in physics).
Mark VandeWettering
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:56:00 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>> at some point after the Big Bang,
>>
>>It's isn't, but...
>>
>>> I would like to see which theory
>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>> intelligence.
>>>
>>> Any takers?
>>
>>"Which theory"? Huh?
>>
>>If you're asking for an introduction to cosmology, you'd probably want to
>>start with wikipedia's "Big Bang" entry, followed by the first few
>>chapters of Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_. That's going to be a
>>much better use of your time that having several people reproduce all of
>>that information here piecemeal.
>
> I am not looking for an introduction to cosmology.
Well, you should be. After all, if you don't understand how cosmology
works, how can you reasonbly argue that it isn't true?
> I'm looking for your personal application of the data to origins.
Most people aren't so egotistical as to believe that their own understanding
or misunderstanding of current cosmological theories present any kind of
constraint on the universe.
> And I do have the
> book, The Elegant Universe, of which I've read portions. Also just
> got through reading Jacob's ladder by Gee. The game now is how to
> apply the various data to origins.
Sadly, it is just a game to you.
I suspect that gravity had to play a role. Perhaps you could tell us.
Mark
Zoe
thank you for the pre-history, Mujin, but I really want to start at
the point where the elements have come into existence. What laws of
chemistry and physcis are there that state that certain elements must
always combine with certain other elements?
>
>> If you want to put this random
>> distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
>> that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
>> elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
>
>But this is just the point. Basically no theory I know of proposes that at
>any point in the history of the universe is it likely that heavy elements
>were distributed in the way you propose except very temporarily immediately
>after a supernova.
I'm interested in that little window of time located "temporarily
immediately after a supernova." Through your knowledge of chemistry,
do you have an explanation for the basis on which elements sort
themselves out into various compounds?
>
>IANA Astronomer, and I don't play one on TV, but ISTM that your proposed
>"starting point" isn't one that anyone actually thinks might have existed.
well, you just mentioned a temporary existence of the heavier elements
being distributed individually and randomly. Can we work from that
point?
Zoe
wrote:
okay. I accept that. So now we have a large pool of elements located
close to some gaseous cloud. According to present knowledge of how
chemistry and physics behaves, what is expected to occur with these
elements?
Zoe
okay. So now we have carbon in existence. What causes carbon to
react with more than one of the other elements and not just combine
only with oxygen, say? Why the differentiation of reactions? I'm not
asking how it happens, but on what basis is there differentiation.
>
>> If you want to put this random
>> distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
>> that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
>> elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> N H C C He N O
>>>> O C O Li
>>>> H N C O
>>>> O N Li H He
>>>> C C He
>>>> H N C O C N
>>>> He
>>>> O O O H N He C H
>>>>
>>>> N C H N N H O Li O
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>>>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>>>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>>>
>>>No. Before the formation of stars there would be almost nothing but H
>>>and He.
>>
>> you seem to want to avoid the existence of the elements.
>
>Other than hydrogen and helium, they didn't exist before stars formed.
okay, I'll go along with you on that. But once they do exist, what is
the next step that chemistry and physics is known to be able to
execute?
>
>> Why? I am
>> at the point where you say that elements formed in supernovas or gas
>> clouds. Can we work from there?
>
>When they form, they aren't randomly distributed.
okay, then please explain how you think they would be distributed,
based on how chemistry and physics is observed to work today. Are
you saying that within a gas cloud, elements are created in orderly
sequence, and they emerge as ready-made compounds? How does that
work?
>
>>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>>> intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> Any takers?
>>>
>>>GIGO.
>>
>> exactly. Now would you kindly introduce something more than garbage
>> objections, please?
>
>Premise. The premise was garbage. The universe isn't a gas of unorganized
>elements.
where have I said the universe is a gas of unorganized elements? I
have opted to start at a point after the big bang where there was as
yet no organization.....unless you are one who maintains that the
universe sprang into existence, fully formed?
Zoe
I guess I didn't make myself clear, Seppo -- as usual. What I'm
asking is not how the elements turn into compounds, but on what
chemical basis do you expect certain elements to always bond with
certain other elements -- or not -- when you have a pool of
free-floating elements.
Zoe
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On 2007-10-28, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2007 15:55:09 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:56:00 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>>> at some point after the Big Bang,
>>>
>>>It's isn't, but...
>>>
>>>> I would like to see which theory
>>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>>> intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> Any takers?
>>>
>>>"Which theory"? Huh?
>>>
>>>If you're asking for an introduction to cosmology, you'd probably want to
>>>start with wikipedia's "Big Bang" entry, followed by the first few
>>>chapters of Brian Greene's _The Elegant Universe_. That's going to be a
>>>much better use of your time that having several people reproduce all of
>>>that information here piecemeal.
>>
>> I am not looking for an introduction to cosmology.
>
>Well, you should be. After all, if you don't understand how cosmology
>works, how can you reasonbly argue that it isn't true?
this discussion is not about cosmology as a whole, but just one aspect
of chemistry.
>
>> I'm looking for your personal application of the data to origins.
>
>Most people aren't so egotistical as to believe that their own understanding
>or misunderstanding of current cosmological theories present any kind of
>constraint on the universe.
you could use a little of Freedthinker's modest self-confidence, Mark.
You are very knowledgeable. It is not egotistical for you to apply
your knowledge to current theories to see if you can improve them or
find a better explanation. Try not to settle down unthinkingly into
someone else's conclusions. Science will become stagnant if everyone
does that.
>
>> And I do have the
>> book, The Elegant Universe, of which I've read portions. Also just
>> got through reading Jacob's ladder by Gee. The game now is how to
>> apply the various data to origins.
>
>Sadly, it is just a game to you.
yes, much more fun that way. Come on, lighten up.
apparently, the next step is the formation of molecules and compounds.
And it is even at this early point that chemistry's ability to
differentiate already seems to be falling behind the known ability of
mental activity to differentiate.
I'll not move on until you catch up.
Zoe
okay. Now that we have the elements, what next?
>
>>
>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>> intelligence.
>>
>
>That was never the physical state of the Universe, and there are no "laws of
>intelligence."
are you saying that scientists do not have a description of what they
envision was the physical state of the universe where elements once
were manufactured and spewed forth by hot, gaseous clouds?
Zoe
ahhh, here is someone who is not in automatic fight-mode; not afraid
to appear to agree, if only partially, with the "enemy". Woot.
>But lets add just a little detail just to make sure
>we are on the same page. Just after the Big Bang, there wasn't much
>but H and He. Then the first generation of stars formed and eventually
>went super-nova. Now you have some C, some O, some Fe, and
>traces of all the other stuff. In the second and later generations of
>stars, you get planets too, because the Fe and the ices formed from
>compounds like CO and H2O provide dust grains which stick together
>in the nebula and eventually grow big enough to become planetesimals.
>
>But, looking at the universe as a whole, it is still 98% H and He, even
>though the other stuff is most common on Earth-sized planets.
okay, I think we are on the same page so far, at least in the area of
the formation of individual elements. Can you explain, from a
chemistry and physics basis, what causes these elements to appear in
more than one type of compound?
>
>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>> intelligence.
>>
>> Any takers?
>
>Sure. Though I admit I haven't really followed your writings on the
>'laws of intelligence'.
that's okay; my sandbox is not for everyone.
>
>My version of the story is a little farther along than yours. I already
>have simple chemical compounds like H2O, CO, CO2, HCN, and CH4,
>plus some iron and silicates. We can start there, or we can back up to
>just a bunch of atoms. Your choice.
I want to back up to the elements that consist of like atoms.
josephus
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:28:40 -0600, josephus <dog...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Zoe wrote:
>>
>>>I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
>>>activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>>>
>>>Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
>>>elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
>>>-- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
>>>(maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>>>
>>>Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
>>>throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
>>>something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>>>
>>> N H C C He N O
>>>O C O Li
>>> H N C O
>>> O N Li H He
>>>C C He
>>> H N C O C N
>>>He
>>> O O O H N He C H
>>>
>>>N C H N N H O Li O
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>>>universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>>>anything more unified than the separate elements?
>>>
>>>If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>>at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>>will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>>inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>>intelligence.
>>>
>>>Any takers?
>>>
>>
>>actually a plasma is made of charged matter that is the forth state of
>>matter. not elements per se. the big bang started out as quarks and
>>those are the building blocks of matter. when the fire ball cooled
>>enough then ions precipitated. then as the temperature fell varous
>>quarks formed antimater and matter in various proportions. the creation
>>and destruction of these varous things contributed to the plasma.
>>eventually it cooled enough the hidrogen and helieum were precipitated.
>> after the universe became transparent for radiation. the vaious
>>clouds of H and He formed the first stars. the only two elements to
>>start with were H and He and a smattering of Li. the stars produced
>>the remainder not the big bang.
>>
>> only after the stars produced the other elements would we se the list
>>of emements you list.
>
>
> thank you for the pre-history, Josephus, but I am starting at a point
> after the elements formed. Can we work from there?
>
then you asked the wrong question with your soup of elements. it
implied a charged plasma but by introducing the Big Bang which you
indicate you are NOT TALKING about. but you added this after clouding
you question.
as a point are you implying nucleogenesis or something else. you are
still not clear what connection you have with anything, even a subject.
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
Mark VandeWettering
Like most of your postings, this stuff isn't _even_ wrong. It's just
jibberish.
>>> If you want to put this random
>>> distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
>>> that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
>>> elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
>>
>>But this is just the point. Basically no theory I know of proposes that at
>>any point in the history of the universe is it likely that heavy elements
>>were distributed in the way you propose except very temporarily immediately
>>after a supernova.
>
> I'm interested in that little window of time located "temporarily
> immediately after a supernova." Through your knowledge of chemistry,
> do you have an explanation for the basis on which elements sort
> themselves out into various compounds?
It's called "chemistry". You can think of this as a separate field if
you like, but it's really just more of the same old physics: in particular
it is a basic property of atoms with charge and mass.
Certain elements are highly reactive. Others, not so much. For instance.
there are certain elements which are called "noble" or "inert" gases.
They are helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon. These gases all
have a particular property: namely the outermost shell of their electrons
are "full": they tend not to exchange electrons with other compounds and
so are stable as monatomic gases.
The outermost electron shell of carbon, on the other hand, is four
electrons short of being full. This means that it very readily forms
bonds with other compounds, including itself (forming such different
seeming allotropes as diamond, graphite, buckyballs, and nanocylinder)
as well as other atoms (hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen) which form the
basis of the chemical processes in all living cells.
>>IANA Astronomer, and I don't play one on TV, but ISTM that your proposed
>>"starting point" isn't one that anyone actually thinks might have existed.
>
> well, you just mentioned a temporary existence of the heavier elements
> being distributed individually and randomly. Can we work from that
> point?
They are hot. They are rushing away from each other very fast. No
compounds they form will be stable until they cool.
Mark
Garamond Lethe
> On 28 Oct 2007 16:50:33 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:04:09 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Now, if you think the elements emerged in non-random distribution, are
>>> you saying that they reacted instantly with each other as they were
>>> produced so that you never found single atoms anywhere in the star's
>>> vicinity, but instead there was a medley of phosphates and sugars and
>>> H2Os and nucleotides and the like?
>>
>>Oh, you're interested in interstellar chemistry (astrochemistry). After a
>>bit of poking around I wasn't able to find any introductory material --
>>wikipedia finally let me down --, but the following might be worth skimming:
>>
>>
>>Here are the chemicals that have been detected in space so far (as far as
>>wikipedia knows)
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_in_interstellar_space
>
> nice....but you are already into compounds, whereas I'm back at the
> production of individual elements before they react with each other.
> What laws of physics and chemistry state that the elements, NO,
> nitrogen and oxygen, will always be linked together to form nitric
> oxide and not, say, HNCO, Isocyanic acid? There are no such laws,
> right?
I think what you're asking is how do you get from a bunch of atoms
wandering around to a bunch of compounds wandering around. Am I right?
There are a handful of ways this happens. I'm going to focus on one of
them and oversimplify it to the point of getting it to fit into a usenet
post.
Atoms have electrons, and electrons (being lazy) try to get as close to
the nucleus of the atom as possible. But there is only room for a set
number of electrons in each available orbit, so the lowest orbit gets
filled up first, then the next lowest, etc. The outermost orbit that has
any electrons in it is called the valence shell.
Let's start with the simplest atom: Hydrogen (H). It only has a single
electron, but there's room in the lowest orbit for two.
The next level up holds eight electrons, so if you're looking at
something like carbon (6 electrons), two electrons will be in the lowest
shell and four will be in the next higher shell, leaving room for four
more.
If a single H and a single C happen to bump into each other, what can we
expect to happen? The electron will be *shared* between them, thus
forming a covalent bond. If you like, think of it as the single hydrogen
electron spending half its time visiting the carbon atom's outer shell and
one of the carbon electrons spending half its time running around the
hydrogen atom.
This still leaves three spaces left for additional electrons on the carbon
valence shell, so three more hydrogen atoms can happen along and form
bonds as well. At that point, you've got something that looks like:
H
HCH
H
or CH4, aka methane. Not surprisingly, we've detected that in
interstellar space.
Have another look at the list of molecules detected in space. Notice
that helium ("He") is not part of any of those compounds. The lowest orbit
can only fit two electrons, helium comes equipped with two electrons, and
thus it zips around minding its own business. There's no extra slot
available for it to share an electron, so it tends not to interact with
anything it runs into.
Covalent bonds are strong, but they can be broken if enough energy is
added. There are several other kinds of bonds....
I wish I could come up with a recent popularization of chemistry to
recommend to you, but I'm completely drawing a blank. I hesitate to
recommend a textbook -- they're really oriented towards someone who wants
to make their living doing chemistry, not someone who is curious to find
out how the world works.
There just aren't amazing new discoveries in basic chemistry anymore --
proteins and macromolecules, yes, and certainly in particle physics, but
atoms and simple compounds were worked out quite a while ago.
(Hopefully, that will provoke an actual chemist to jump in and give a much
better answer.)
Zoe
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On 2007-10-28, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
>> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>>
>> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
>> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
>> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
>> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>
>The formation of elements other than hydrogen and helium aren't
>particularly less mysterious or more uncertain than hydrogen and helium.
>Roughly speaking, Light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) were
>formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang. Heavier elements (through
>iron) were formed by fusion processes in stars. Even heavier elements
>by neutron capture in massive stars, or through novas.
okay, we are at the same starting point now. What laws govern the
formation of compounds from elements? And I don't mean how do they
form, but on what basis do elements of one kind combine with elements
of another kind in different arrangements to form different compounds?
Is there a law that says, oxygen will always combine with hydrogen to
form water? Okay, that was rhetorical. The answer is no.
Is there a law that says three oxygens will always link up to form
ozone and refuse to link with hydrogen lurking nearby, thus preventing
water from being formed at that particular location? No.
If there is no law, on what basis the differentiation?
>
>> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
>> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
>> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>>
>> N H C C He N O
>> O C O Li
>> H N C O
>> O N Li H He
>> C C He
>> H N C O C N
>> He
>> O O O H N He C H
>>
>> N C H N N H O Li O
>
>The distribution isn't close to correct.
of course it is not even close to correct, Mark. This is not meant to
be an accurate representation, but just a sample idea of random
distribution of elements as they first come into existence.
>
>> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>
>No.
why no?
>
>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>> intelligence.
>
>I tell you what: you go first. Tell us how this soup of letters
>becomes you via the laws of intelligence.
well, so far, at this stage in the origin of the universe,
intelligence is running neck and neck with chemistry and physics, and
beginning to pull ahead already. It is generally accepted that mental
activity is capable of combining elements to produce various
compounds.
Chemistry, on the other hand, though also able to produce reactions
that form compounds, has not yet been explained by you as to the basis
on which differentiation occurs in compound formation from a pool of
elements.
I don't want to move further yet until you present your case.
Garamond Lethe
> heavy stuff, Garamond. Could we start back, please, at the more basic
> area of element formation? What is chemistry capable of producing
> when you have a pool of individual elements?
Now that I've read your other responses, here's the short answer:
Gravity herds the atoms together.
Bonding determines which compounds form (and how) from the individual
atoms.
Bonding is mostly based on the number and energy (and thus arrangement) of
electrons present. This also explains why some atoms don't tend to bond
(e.g. helium).
Bonds can be broken if sufficient energy is introduced.
See wikipedia's "Chemical Bond" for a place to start.
R. Baldwin
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation
>
>>
>>>
>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>> intelligence.
>>>
>>
>>That was never the physical state of the Universe, and there are no "laws
>>of
>>intelligence."
>
> are you saying that scientists do not have a description of what they
> envision was the physical state of the universe where elements once
> were manufactured and spewed forth by hot, gaseous clouds?
>
That would be an incorrect description. All elements heavier than Beryllium
(atomic number 4) could not exist except for stars.
See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest2.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
R. Baldwin
>>
>>My version of the story is a little farther along than yours. I already
>>have simple chemical compounds like H2O, CO, CO2, HCN, and CH4,
>>plus some iron and silicates. We can start there, or we can back up to
>>just a bunch of atoms. Your choice.
>
> I want to back up to the elements that consist of like atoms.
>
Zoe, every element consists of a distinct atom. No two elements have like
atoms.
R. Baldwin
>>
>>You *really* ought to start from the very basics:
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence>
>>is a good start. Follow the references in section *Valence in molecules,
>>atoms, or subatomic particles* for further
>>reading (forget the subatomic particles for now).
>>Managerial overview: Forming of chemical bonds is an extremely well known
>>and understood mechanism which is
>>described by "valence bond theory" in chemistry (and in physics).
>
> I guess I didn't make myself clear, Seppo -- as usual. What I'm
> asking is not how the elements turn into compounds, but on what
> chemical basis do you expect certain elements to always bond with
> certain other elements -- or not -- when you have a pool of
> free-floating elements.
>
Seppo answered that question, Zoe. Valence electroncs are primarily
responsible for how elements bond with each other. This is pretty basic
stuff from a high school chemistry class.
Carbon, for example, loves to bond with lighter atoms, making all kinds of
organic compounds, thanks to its having four valence electrons.
You can also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Mark VandeWettering
The basics of this is covered pretty well in high school chemistry, Zoe.
Without getting into the quantum mechanics which underly the process,
each atom has a particular arrangement of electrons surrounding the
nucleus. These electrons are arranged in a series of shells. Each of
these shells fill in order, up until a maximum size, then the a new
shell begins again.
In the case of carbon, the outermost shell has four electrons, but can
hold eight. Simplifying horribly (but perhaps not enough for you to
grasp) these "holes" in the outer electron shell are in relatively
high energy state, and an atom in such a state is in proximity to in
a similar state, there is a tendancy for the two to bind together by
sharing an electron and releasing energy. This kind of chemical bond
is called a "covalent bond". Because carbon has four gaps in its
outermost shell, it has lots of opportunities to form covalent bonds,
either with other carbon atoms (say, by forming stable arrangements
like diamond, graphite, bucky balls, or nanoyclinders) or with hydrogen,
oxygen or nitrogren. (Hydrogen is short one electron, oxygen, two, and
nitrogen 3 electrons).
When temperature drops sufficiently, gravitational attraction over
large distance, electro-chemical bonding over shorter distances.
>>> Why? I am
>>> at the point where you say that elements formed in supernovas or gas
>>> clouds. Can we work from there?
>>
>>When they form, they aren't randomly distributed.
>
> okay, then please explain how you think they would be distributed,
As individual atoms moving away from the supernova, very fast.
> based on how chemistry and physics is observed to work today. Are
> you saying that within a gas cloud, elements are created in orderly
> sequence, and they emerge as ready-made compounds?
No. Of course not.
> How does that work?
It doesn't.
>>>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>>>> intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any takers?
>>>>
>>>>GIGO.
>>>
>>> exactly. Now would you kindly introduce something more than garbage
>>> objections, please?
>>
>>Premise. The premise was garbage. The universe isn't a gas of unorganized
>>elements.
>
> where have I said the universe is a gas of unorganized elements? I
> have opted to start at a point after the big bang where there was as
> yet no organization.....
No. Your starting point already had heavy elements. By the time
heavy elements exist, gravity has already created and ultimately destroyed
the first stars. The distribution of stars isn't uniform. The
distribution of matter in the universe isn't uniform.
> unless you are one who maintains that the
> universe sprang into existence, fully formed?
You have a remarkable talent for picking the most idiotic interpretations
of information which is sensibly presented to you. No. That's not what
I believe. Nor is it a reasoanble conclusion from the information that
you have been presented.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
Then why not ask a question about chemistry?
>>> I'm looking for your personal application of the data to origins.
>>
>>Most people aren't so egotistical as to believe that their own
>>understanding or misunderstanding of current cosmological theories
>>present any kind of constraint on the universe.
>
> you could use a little of Freedthinker's modest self-confidence, Mark.
Freedthinker isn't modest at all. He thinks that his modest and
undisciplined musings about science are more accurate than the entire
population of earth's scientists. I can see why you might feel some
affinity toward him, but you are the ones who suffer an ego problem,
not I.
> You are very knowledgeable. It is not egotistical for you to apply
> your knowledge to current theories to see if you can improve them or
> find a better explanation. Try not to settle down unthinkingly into
> someone else's conclusions. Science will become stagnant if everyone
> does that.
Your concern for science is laudible. It's a pity you understand it
not a whit.
Chemistry is a description of what is, it isn't an entity which shuffles
balls around and builds stuff.
Mark
josephus
> On 28 Oct 2007 16:50:33 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:04:09 -0400, Zoe wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Now, if you think the elements emerged in non-random distribution, are
>>>you saying that they reacted instantly with each other as they were
>>>produced so that you never found single atoms anywhere in the star's
>>>vicinity, but instead there was a medley of phosphates and sugars and
>>>H2Os and nucleotides and the like?
>>
>>Oh, you're interested in interstellar chemistry (astrochemistry). After a
>>bit of poking around I wasn't able to find any introductory material --
>>wikipedia finally let me down --, but the following might be worth skimming:
>>
>>
>>Here are the chemicals that have been detected in space so far (as far as
>>wikipedia knows)
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_in_interstellar_space
> </abstract>
>>
<snip>
there is too much here for zoe. She cant even ask a question that has
that answer.
>>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/collection/interstellar_chem
>
>
> heavy stuff, Garamond. Could we start back, please, at the more basic
> area of element formation? What is chemistry capable of producing
> when you have a pool of individual elements?
>
Zoe,
Your soup of elements cannot exist before stars. period. stars are
the only source of these elements. the big bang has a theory that says
certain percentages of H, He , Li. Now that is a trick because you have
to understand quanta mechanics and thermonuclear theory. just take our
word for it, before stars you only have H, He, and Li. later in dust
clouds you would have lots of H, and He and a little trace of all the
other elements. Generally speaking your soup of elements cannot exist.
It just cant.
I think I know where you are headed, but you cannot get there from here.
you have to shuck the ideas that you have about where elements come
from. because they are wrong. to look at "rules" otherwise known as
laws of nature, those laws are not easy and very difficult. some of
those things we dont really know, like what was the makeup of the dust
cloud that created our sun. we have guesses, but we have been 30 times
around the galaxy and because we have moved far away we cant really
know what went on in that dust cloud, we got hit by a planetoid and it
melted the earth, we got a moon, during this time other planets got
whacked, Pluto and Charon are in a synchronous orbit with Neptune.
Neptune may have been whacked also. Where did these big object come from.
now you want to get here from the BB we have a very special planet,
even our moon is special, we are a DOUBLE PLANET for real. so now
creation in scientific terms is different than creation in biblical
terms. after the Big Whack, the earth cooled enough for oceans and
life appeared very, very soon.
we are interested in where we came from. and evolution is the story of
what happened to that life, not how it got here.
just for the record when life developed complex brains, intelligence to
a giant step.
I asked the question one time about intelligence, I said why arent
hive creatures intelligent, and how would we know. They solve complex
problems with creative solutions, ants, bees, and wasps, do this. the
carpenter wasp is an interesting creature. it is solitary. it has a
list of 10 or 20 things it can do, however stinging you in defense is
not one of them. you can pester a carpenter wasp until it tries to build
its sand based nest in mid air. the question there is how smart is
that wasp. and do we share any part of its intelligence. the carpenter
wasp is extremely limited.
because we look at problem solving, it may not be the only kind of
intelligence, especially, since it is something humans do.
Ken Rode
Note: the "gaseous cloud" and the "large pool of elements" are the same
thing. The elements are not produced by the cloud, the elements *are*
the cloud.
I've read through some of the other responses, and I have to agree with
some of the respondents. It would genuinely be helpful at this point if
you actually knew some basic chemistry.
However, pushing on with your question... Elements in close proximity
with each other and with the right energy conditions may combine in ways
that we now understand at some level. One of Seppo's posts referred you
to a Wikipedia article on valence. I don't guarantee that you'll
understand it, but give it a try. If you find it incomprehensible, let
me know and I'll see if I can find something easier for you.
Mark VandeWettering
I cannot fathom what your question means. The differentiation is
obviously that one particular configuration happens instead of another.
The statistics of which is more likely has to do with the position
and charge of each particle.
Is this particularly challenging?
>>> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
>>> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
>>> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>>>
>>> N H C C He N O
>>> O C O Li
>>> H N C O
>>> O N Li H He
>>> C C He
>>> H N C O C N
>>> He
>>> O O O H N He C H
>>>
>>> N C H N N H O Li O
>>
>>The distribution isn't close to correct.
>
> of course it is not even close to correct, Mark. This is not meant to
> be an accurate representation, but just a sample idea of random
> distribution of elements as they first come into existence.
>
>>
>>> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>>
>>No.
>
> why no?
Because it isn't. Carbon, oxygen and nitrogen only occur after
something "more unified than the separate elements".
>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>> intelligence.
>>
>>I tell you what: you go first. Tell us how this soup of letters
>>becomes you via the laws of intelligence.
>
> well, so far, at this stage in the origin of the universe,
> intelligence is running neck and neck with chemistry and physics, and
> beginning to pull ahead already. It is generally accepted that mental
> activity is capable of combining elements to produce various
> compounds.
Accepted by whom? It's nonsense.
> Chemistry, on the other hand, though also able to produce reactions
> that form compounds, has not yet been explained by you as to the basis
> on which differentiation occurs in compound formation from a pool of
> elements.
Since you don't understand what chemistry has to say, perhaps you should
employ some of that rather vaunted humility and withold judgement.
> I don't want to move further yet until you present your case.
I don't try to teach pigs to dance. It doesn't work, and it annoys
the pig.
Mark
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> well, so far, at this stage in the origin of the universe,
> intelligence is running neck and neck with chemistry and physics, and
> beginning to pull ahead already. It is generally accepted that mental
> activity is capable of combining elements to produce various
> compounds.
>
> Chemistry, on the other hand, though also able to produce reactions
> that form compounds, has not yet been explained by you as to the basis
> on which differentiation occurs in compound formation from a pool of
> elements.
Zoe, if you have an end game aha moment in mind with this thread, you
can forget it. I don't think any creationists claim the known chemical
principles are insufficient to account for the known compounds from
known atomic constituents present at known concentrations without
invoking intelligence.
Thermodynamics or physical chemistry or "thermogodamics" as certain
engineering types I know like to say is not just a good idea.... it works.
sharon
hersheyh
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:05:35 +0200, SeppoP
>
>
>
> <seppo_pietikai...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
> >Zoe wrote:
Free-floating elements also bond with previously formed compounds.
The exact mix of compounds you get will be a function of the chance
interaction of atoms/ions/compounds, their concentrations, and their
innate chemical activity.
Did you have a point that you were trying to aim at?
Ernest Major
<muz...@aol.com> writes
>
>thank you for the pre-history, Mujin, but I really want to start at the
>point where the elements have come into existence. What laws of
>chemistry and physcis are there that state that certain elements must
>always combine with certain other elements?
>
chemistry. There are *no* laws of chemistry and physics that state the
certain elements *must always combine* with certain other elements.
Chemistry is not random. However that does not mean that the same
reactions occur regardless of the composition, pressure and temperature.
What compounds are formed depends on what elements are present, in what
ratios, and on the temperature and pressure of the ensemble.
For example, at lower temperatures an appropriate mixture of copper,
sulphur, oxygen and hydrogen forms the blue Cupric Sulphate Pentahydrate
CuS04.5H20. At higher temperatures it changes into a mixture of
anhydrous Cupric Sulphate and free water. (There is also a Trihydrate
and a Monohydrate.) I'd guess that at still higher temperatures it
breaks down further to form Cupric Oxide and Sulphur Trioxide.
For example, depending on the relative concentrations of carbon and
oxygen, the predominant result of the reaction between those elements
may be carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.
All the above refers to reactions under equilibrium conditions. But
systems need not be at chemical equilibrium. If you react chemicals at
high temperatures and cool the products rapidly what you obtain may be
far from equilibrium at the new temperature, but the approach to
equilibrium may be so slow (as in the transformation of diamond to
graphite at room temperature and pressure) that it can be ignored. So
the set of chemicals you have depends not only on the elemental
composition, temperature and pressure, but also on their history.
Another departure from equilibrium occurs when you continuously remove
one product (or two or more products). This is what happens with the
electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
Now to consider how chemical reactions work. In simplified terms what
you have is a mixture of molecules and atoms whizzing around and
colliding with each other. Sometimes when they collide they will "stick"
together; at other times a collision will break up an existing molecule,
or exchange moeities between molecules. The collisions occur randomly,
but clearly the probability of each type of collision depends on
relative concentrations of the classes of participants. What happens
when a collision occurs depends on the chemical properties of the
participants, which in turn is related to the available energy states of
the electrons in both isolated atoms and in molecules, and on the energy
of the collisions, which is related to the temperature.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mike L
wrote:
Is there a US equivalent of the Brit Open University? A distance
learning course like the following would be just what the doctor
ordered:
<http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?C01S103>
--
Mike.
Mujin
news:l2t9i3h26sov3o7r1...@4ax.com:
I know. That's why your idea that the elements were at one point randomly
distributed is such a problem. They weren't, since most of them could not
form except under the special conditions within stars.
> What laws of
> chemistry and physcis are there that state that certain elements must
> always combine with certain other elements?
There are no "laws" which state that certain elements *must* always combine
with certain other elements, unless you count interaction based on the
exchange of electric charges laws. Rather, different types of atoms
*compete*, and the ones that are most reactive basically get to have the
choicest reactions.
Take a look at the periodic table. On the left side you will find all the
metals. As you move *down* the columns of metals, the atoms get more and
more reactive. On the right side you will find all the non-metals. As you
move *up* the columns of non-metals, the atoms get more reactive. And
looking at the rows, basically as you move to the right along a row the
atoms get more reactive. Take a look at this graphic for details:
http://www.nelsonthornes.com/secondary/science/scinet/scinet/reaction/react
/periodic.htm
The reason why metals get more reactive as you go down the columns is
basically because the lower you go, the more difficutly the atoms have with
holding on to their outer electrons. Metals react by giving up extra
electrons and sharing them with other atoms. Let's call this being a
electron donator.
The reason why non-metals get more reactive as you go *up* the columns is
because the higher up you go, the more aggressively the atoms absorb
electrons. Non-metals react by absorbing extra electrons, and since
electrons don't usually float about by themselves they tend to do it by
taking outer electrons away from atoms that can't hold on to them as
strongly. Let's call this being an electron attractor.
Now, to a certain extent *every* atom is capable of both donating and
attracting electrons. But most atoms are much better at one than they are
at the other.
When two atoms come into contact, one of two things will happen: either one
atom will be so much stronger than the other (in terms of taking and
holding on to electrons) that the two atoms' cloud of electrons will merge,
with the attractor atom taking the lion's share - this is what we call
bonding - *or* the atoms will be fairly closely matched, in which case
nothing will happen. If you have a mixture of many different kinds of
atoms, in general the best attractors will bond with the best donators
(i.e. the attractors will force the donators to share electrons), and some
of the attractors will be strong enough to take control of several
donators.
Now that's the extremely short and simplified version - obviously there are
more factors involved, and things get enormously more complicated once you
have simple molecules interacting.
>
>>
>>> If you want to put this random
>>> distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
>>> that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
>>> elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
>>
>>But this is just the point. Basically no theory I know of proposes
>>that at any point in the history of the universe is it likely that
>>heavy elements were distributed in the way you propose except very
>>temporarily immediately after a supernova.
>
> I'm interested in that little window of time located "temporarily
> immediately after a supernova." Through your knowledge of chemistry,
> do you have an explanation for the basis on which elements sort
> themselves out into various compounds?
It's called chemistry. Seriously, Zoe, don't you do *any* high-school
level reading before you start asking these questions? If you're serious
about finding out the answers to your questions it would help immensely if
you were to prepare yourself with the basics first. There are lots of
people here who are willing to answer your questions, but I doubt anyone
wants to catch you up on material that is taught in schools starting at
around 7th grade.
Maybe you could try to bring yourself up to speed at one of these sites -
I've included some at several levels so you can follow whatever speed of
learning curve you're comfortable with:
http://www.nelsonthornes.com/secondary/science/scinet/scinet/index.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/10429/low/indexl.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/Chemistry_101_Introduction_to_Ch
emistry.htm
http://www.preparatorychemistry.com/
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> It's called chemistry. Seriously, Zoe, don't you do *any* high-school
> level reading before you start asking these questions? If you're serious
> about finding out the answers to your questions it would help immensely if
> you were to prepare yourself with the basics first. There are lots of
> people here who are willing to answer your questions, but I doubt anyone
> wants to catch you up on material that is taught in schools starting at
> around 7th grade.
You have just nutshelled the issue with Zoe and other creationists.
That is, only through ignorance can Zoe maintain a belief in creationism
and still look at herself in the mirror every day.
She is a victim and I feel very sorry for her. These desperate attempts
to shoot down science when it conflicts with the lies told to her by her
loved and trusted ones are pitiful. Creationists should be ashamed of
what they do to their own children, be it out of ignorance or flat-out
lying.
sharon
Baron Bodissey
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:15:56 -0000, Bob D <ju.d...@btopenworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
> >> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>
> >> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
> >> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
> >> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
> >> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>
> >> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
> >> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>
I think the short answer is that the way elements combine is an
inherent property of their structure, which was set when they formed.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon
Zoe
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On 2007-10-28, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
snip>
>> I'm interested in that little window of time located "temporarily
>> immediately after a supernova." Through your knowledge of chemistry,
>> do you have an explanation for the basis on which elements sort
>> themselves out into various compounds?
>
>It's called "chemistry". You can think of this as a separate field if
>you like, but it's really just more of the same old physics: in particular
>it is a basic property of atoms with charge and mass.
>
>Certain elements are highly reactive. Others, not so much. For instance.
>there are certain elements which are called "noble" or "inert" gases.
>They are helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon. These gases all
>have a particular property: namely the outermost shell of their electrons
>are "full": they tend not to exchange electrons with other compounds and
>so are stable as monatomic gases.
>
>The outermost electron shell of carbon, on the other hand, is four
>electrons short of being full. This means that it very readily forms
>bonds with other compounds, including itself (forming such different
>seeming allotropes as diamond, graphite, buckyballs, and nanocylinder)
>as well as other atoms (hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen) which form the
>basis of the chemical processes in all living cells.
thank you, Mark, for the chemistry lesson. But really, that is not
the area that I'm talking about -- not the how of covalent bonding,
but the differentiation of compounds from a sea of elements, where the
elements could bind with just about any other element.
Narrowing down the field of elements for illustration purposes,
suppose there is an area that contains three oxygens and one hydrogen,
floating around aimlessly:
O H O O
would you expect to get, say, water H2O, with an oxygen left over,
instead of ozone O3, with the hydrogen left out? Luck and chance? If
that is your answer, then good, we can move on. But if there is some
law of chemistry that dictates that in the presence of those elements,
water will form ahead of ozone or vice versa, then say on.
snip>
Ocean of Nuance
Phase diagrams (or temp-pressure diagrams) can be constructed for any
chemical systems. Specify and temp and a pressure within that chemical
system and you swill find the phases that will be at equilibrium. Note
the phases formed will be sensitive to the activities (concentrations)
of the chemical constituents and that there may be kinetic hindrances to
the equilibrium distribution of products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
sharon
Zoe
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <l2t9i3h26sov3o7r1...@4ax.com>, Zoe
><muz...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>thank you for the pre-history, Mujin, but I really want to start at the
>>point where the elements have come into existence. What laws of
>>chemistry and physcis are there that state that certain elements must
>>always combine with certain other elements?
>>
>You give the impression that you have a bad miscomprehension of
>chemistry. There are *no* laws of chemistry and physics that state the
>certain elements *must always combine* with certain other elements.
my thought exactly. I just wanted to be clear that there is no
natural law that states that sugars and phosphates, for instance, must
line up in repeated links that form a regular and consistent chain
That is not how luck and chance works.
okay, so at this point in the early universe, your position is that it
is acceptable to conclude that the formation of compounds are erratic
and varied, depending on circumstances. And this conclusion is a
reasonable one based on what you have observed about the behavior of
chemistry and physics in our world today.
On the other hand, my position is that it is equally acceptable, so
far, to conclude that the formation of compounds can occur through the
application of mental activity, based on what scientists have been
observed to do in the building and splitting of compounds in our world
today.
Neither position has the edge at the moment.
Klaus H
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:09:37 -0500, Mark VandeWettering
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
>>>>> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
>>>>> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
>>>>> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
>>>>> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>>>> elements formed after the big bang. Some of them result from fusion in
>>>> stars, and others as a result of nucleosynthesis in supernovae.
>>> my premise, which we both agree on, is that elements made their
>>> appearance at some point after the big bang. Come on, John, do try
>>> not to get sidetracked by peripherals. There is no premise on the
>>> table right now that contends that you absolutely don't know how
>>> elements were formed.
>>>
>>> I am starting at a point where the elements are already present.
>>>
>>>>> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
>>>>> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>>>> in stars, planets, and gas clouds. They would not be randomly distributed.
>>> before they "clumped" together, they would first be separate and
>>> randomly distributed, right?
>> by fusing lighter elements, and the only place that can occur is in
>> dense regions of hydrogen and helium (i.e. inside stars).
>
> okay. So now we have carbon in existence. What causes carbon to
> react with more than one of the other elements and not just combine
> asking how it happens, but on what basis is there differentiation.
>
>>> distribution within the vicinity of stars, then I'll go along with
>>> that. Consider the spread below to be the random distribution of
>>> elements in or near gas clouds, before clumping occurred.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> O C O Li
>>>>> H N C O
>>>>> O N Li H He
>>>>> C C He
>>>>> H N C O C N
>>>>> He
>>>>> O O O H N He C H
>>>>>
>>>>> N C H N N H O Li O
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>>>>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>>>>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>>>> and He.
>>> you seem to want to avoid the existence of the elements.
>> Other than hydrogen and helium, they didn't exist before stars formed.
>
> okay, I'll go along with you on that. But once they do exist, what is
> the next step that chemistry and physics is known to be able to
> execute?
>
>>> at the point where you say that elements formed in supernovas or gas
>>> clouds. Can we work from there?
>> When they form, they aren't randomly distributed.
>
> okay, then please explain how you think they would be distributed,
> you saying that within a gas cloud, elements are created in orderly
> work?
>
>>>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>>>> intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>> GIGO.
>>> exactly. Now would you kindly introduce something more than garbage
>>> objections, please?
>> Premise. The premise was garbage. The universe isn't a gas of unorganized
>> elements.
>
> where have I said the universe is a gas of unorganized elements? I
> have opted to start at a point after the big bang where there was as
> universe sprang into existence, fully formed?
>
Zoe, I think I see the problem, here.
Everyone is giving you links to great information on chemistry, but most
of it is High School level, and far too advanced for you. Please look at
elementary school science for definitions of woulds such as "element",
"atom", and "molecule". It is obvious that you have no idea what these
basic words mean.
Klaus
Zoe
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On 2007-10-28, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
snip>
>> okay. So now we have carbon in existence. What causes carbon to
>> react with more than one of the other elements and not just combine
>> only with oxygen, say?
>
>The basics of this is covered pretty well in high school chemistry, Zoe.
>Without getting into the quantum mechanics which underly the process,
>each atom has a particular arrangement of electrons surrounding the
>nucleus. These electrons are arranged in a series of shells. Each of
>these shells fill in order, up until a maximum size, then the a new
>shell begins again.
>
>In the case of carbon, the outermost shell has four electrons, but can
>hold eight. Simplifying horribly (but perhaps not enough for you to
>grasp) these "holes" in the outer electron shell are in relatively
>high energy state, and an atom in such a state is in proximity to in
>a similar state, there is a tendancy for the two to bind together by
>sharing an electron and releasing energy. This kind of chemical bond
>is called a "covalent bond". Because carbon has four gaps in its
>outermost shell, it has lots of opportunities to form covalent bonds,
>either with other carbon atoms (say, by forming stable arrangements
>like diamond, graphite, bucky balls, or nanoyclinders) or with hydrogen,
>oxygen or nitrogren. (Hydrogen is short one electron, oxygen, two, and
>nitrogen 3 electrons).
you know your stuff, Mark. A nice, clear explanation. But do you see
now what I am asking? In a pool of free-floating elements that have
not yet bonded because they are newborn, is there competition among
the elements to form different compounds? Would you say that five
carbons, seven hydrogens, and two oxygens probably happened to bounce
into each other and formed a sugar molecule in the early universe? How
about four oxygens surrounding a single phosphorus atom; would there
be a tendency for the oxygens to gravitate more readily to the
phosphorus to create a phosphate molecule than they would to form a
sugar molecule?
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>
>Note: the "gaseous cloud" and the "large pool of elements" are the same
>thing. The elements are not produced by the cloud, the elements *are*
>the cloud.
but wait, Mark said that these stars would have been created and
destroyed long before the elements came on the scene. So how come the
elements are already on the scene, according to your scenario. Maybe
y'all need to get together?
>
>I've read through some of the other responses, and I have to agree with
>some of the respondents. It would genuinely be helpful at this point if
>you actually knew some basic chemistry.
I do.
>
>However, pushing on with your question... Elements in close proximity
>with each other and with the right energy conditions may combine in ways
>that we now understand at some level. One of Seppo's posts referred you
>to a Wikipedia article on valence. I don't guarantee that you'll
>understand it, but give it a try. If you find it incomprehensible, let
>me know and I'll see if I can find something easier for you.
thank you kind sir.
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>I think what you're asking is how do you get from a bunch of atoms
>wandering around to a bunch of compounds wandering around. Am I right?
yes. How do you propose that this happens. My proposal is that
mental activity is known to be able to build or split compounds. I
want to see what your proposal of chemistry-and-physics-only can do.
hey, no need to recommend a simple textbook. Your explanation is
quite sufficient -- clear and succinct....and interestingly explained.
Thanks.
>
>There just aren't amazing new discoveries in basic chemistry anymore --
>proteins and macromolecules, yes, and certainly in particle physics, but
>atoms and simple compounds were worked out quite a while ago.
>
>(Hopefully, that will provoke an actual chemist to jump in and give a much
>better answer.)
yours is fine.
Ken Rode
Do you understand how scientists construct and split compounds? Do you
know what their main tool is? It's... <drum roll>... chemistry. Human
beings do not generally take individual atoms and put them next to each
other. Instead, based on an understanding of the chemical properties of
the materials, elements and compounds, that they use, they can put these
materials together in appropriate proportions and provide appropriate
amounts of energy to build the compounds that they're interested in
producing. It's just chemistry.
Zoe
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:38:36 -0400, Zoe wrote:
okay, so up to this point, chemistry is a sufficient answer as to the
formation of compounds from elements. Even if I propose mental
activity as an observed ability to create compounds from elements
and/or to destroy said bonds, there is no real need to resort to
mental activity as the only means of creating compounds at this stage
of the universe. We can move on?
David Hare-Scott
>
> okay, we are at the same starting point now. What laws govern the
> formation of compounds from elements? And I don't mean how do they
> form, but on what basis do elements of one kind combine with elements
> of another kind in different arrangements to form different compounds?
> Is there a law that says, oxygen will always combine with hydrogen to
> form water? Okay, that was rhetorical. The answer is no.
>
> Is there a law that says three oxygens will always link up to form
> ozone and refuse to link with hydrogen lurking nearby, thus preventing
> water from being formed at that particular location? No.
>
> If there is no law, on what basis the differentiation?
>
You have been given the answer to this several times but I cannot tell if you
had a chance to read the replies before you went on to engage in other parts
of the thread where you were given essentially the same answer. However,
assuming that you do read up on valency theory and gain some broad
understanding in a few hours of a body of material that generally takes much
longer, where are we going?
There are likely to be a few more steps between compound forming and mental
activity than between the big bang and compound forming. Some of these steps
may be harder to get your head around than chemistry. This being the case,
this thread could be longest one in the history of TO by the time we get
there - if we get there.
So why not lay it out out and ask your real question or make your real
statement? What is it that is actually bothering you? Give us an overview so
that people can decide from the start if trudging through step by step is
useful.
David
Zoe
<wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>On 2007-10-28, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
snip>
>>
>> this discussion is not about cosmology as a whole, but just one aspect
>> of chemistry.
>
>Then why not ask a question about chemistry?
I am.
>>>> I'm looking for your personal application of the data to origins.
>>>
>>>Most people aren't so egotistical as to believe that their own
>>>understanding or misunderstanding of current cosmological theories
>>>present any kind of constraint on the universe.
>>
>> you could use a little of Freedthinker's modest self-confidence, Mark.
>
>Freedthinker isn't modest at all. He thinks that his modest and
>undisciplined musings about science are more accurate than the entire
>population of earth's scientists. I can see why you might feel some
>affinity toward him, but you are the ones who suffer an ego problem,
>not I.
I don't remember Freedthinker claiming that his musings were more
accurate than the entire population of earth's scientists. All he did
was state his personal position on the data. Nothing wrong with that.
Fortunately, this is not a totalitarian newsgroup, and differences in
viewpoint can be expressed without condemnation .....
snip>
Zoe
wrote:
snip>
>
>Free-floating elements also bond with previously formed compounds.
>The exact mix of compounds you get will be a function of the chance
>interaction of atoms/ions/compounds, their concentrations, and their
>innate chemical activity.
Howard!! Is this you? Where are your 13 other paragraphs?
>
>Did you have a point that you were trying to aim at?
yes, I am trying to determine how far the laws of chemistry and
physics can go and how far the laws of intelligence can go.
Ken Rode
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:53:49 -0400, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>> Note: the "gaseous cloud" and the "large pool of elements" are the same
>> thing. The elements are not produced by the cloud, the elements *are*
>> the cloud.
>
> but wait, Mark said that these stars would have been created and
> destroyed long before the elements came on the scene. So how come the
> elements are already on the scene, according to your scenario. Maybe
> y'all need to get together?
Heavier elements are constructed using nuclear fission, which happens
inside stars. In order for this material to make its way out of stars,
stars need to be destroyed. Mark is right.
If the gaseous cloud contains heavier elements, then it contains
materials blown off after the destruction of a star.
>> I've read through some of the other responses, and I have to agree with
>> some of the respondents. It would genuinely be helpful at this point if
>> you actually knew some basic chemistry.
>
> I do.
Colour me suspicious. Your responses so far have indicated that you have
no grasp of valence, which is a significant part of the answer to your
questions.
Cubist
so-called "hydroxyl ion", i.e., HO-.A fourth possible outcome is that
you end up with one molecule of O2 taking up two of the original
oxygen atoms, plus the third oxygen atom flying around unattached,
plus the lone hydrogen atom still remaining unattached.
At this point, you are likely to want to ask something along the
lines of, "Well, yes, but how can you tell *which* specific outcome,
in particular, is going to occur?" The answer, as best I can tell: We
*don't* know which *specific outcome* will occur in any given case.
Given a sufficiently large number of particular cases, however, we
*can* say which percentage of those particular cases will have an
outcome of X, and which percentage will have an outcome of Y, and so
forth.
Now, *some* people -- which group may or may not include you, Zoe
-- might respond to the above by saying something like, "Hold it! If
each individual case is random/uncontrolled/unguided, how can you
possibly figure out how likely it is that any one outcome in
particular will occur?" My answer: Ask your insurance company. They
can't tell you exactly which specific members of their customer base
will break their legs this year, but they can give you a darned close
estimate of *how many* of their customers are going to break their
legs this year. Or you might ask the management of your local casino,
if there is a casino in your neighborhood; there's no way for the
casino management to tell which specific gamblers will hit the jackpot
this evening, but the casino's management can give you a darn good
estimate of *how many* gamblers will hit the jackpot this evening.
My guess (which I am sure will be corrected by people who actually
know what they're talking about) is that (a) there are a
Luck and chance? If
> that is your answer, then good, we can move on. But if there is some
> law of chemistry that dictates that in the presence of those elements,
> water will form ahead of ozone or vice versa, then say on.
There is no such law-of-chemistry-which-dictates-that-oxygen-MUST-
NECESSARILY-form-Specific-Molecule-X, any more than there is a law-of-
insurance-which-dictates-that-J.-Random-Customer-MUST-NECESSARILY-
break-their-leg-this-year, or a law-of-probability-which-dictates-that-
J.-Random-Gambler-MUST-NECESSARILY-hit-the-jackpot-tonight. Now, if
you want to say that some Ineffable Intelligence was somehow involved
with making J. Random Gambler hit the jackpot, or making J. Random
Customer break their leg, or making a particular oxygen atom react in
a particular way so as to yield a particular molecule, feel free to
think so. Just don't pretend that that idea has anything to do with
science.
Ocean of Nuance
Someone should write a book called, "Mere Chemistry." :)
sharon
Ocean of Nuance
(snip)
> So why not lay it out out and ask your real question or make your real
> statement? What is it that is actually bothering you? Give us an overview so
> that people can decide from the start if trudging through step by step is
> useful.
I am pretty new at this game and often am teh last to see where the
creationist is taking something. That said, in this case, I think the
end game is clear from what Zoe has explicitly written. It is the hope
that chemistry isn't enough to account for the formation of certain
requisite compounds from the atoms present at a particular time in the
past. Or at least you can't distinguish whether mere chemistry is
involved from the case of intelligence stepped in.
How'm I doin'?
sharon
sharon
Garamond Lethe
I think you need to show that "mental activity" can make it this far. As
I understand it, labeling this "mental activity" does not allow any
predictions to be made, nor does it allow for any explanations. As a
theory goes, that's a non-starter. It doesn't let you do any work.
This might be confusing couched in these terms. Say you're driving to
work and you find yourself in a real mess of a traffic jam. This could be
caused by the mental activity of a creator, right? But that doesn't tell
you how big the traffic jam is or whether you should expect to see it
tomorrow or not.
When you get home, you find your oven is broken. Again, this could be due
to "mental activity" of the creator, but running with this as your theory
is not going to get dinner on the table.
And so it is with the beginning of the universe. Yes, it *could* have
been created by Cthulhu, or maybe we're all just brains in a vat, or maybe
you're just a brain in my vat -- none of these can be disproven, but since
they're not useful, they can be (and are) discarded.
So to sum up: chemistry has gotten us to the point where compounds exist.
"Mental activity" isn't there yet. Let's not move on until you get to
that point.
Ken Rode
> Zoe wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:53:49 -0400, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>>> Note: the "gaseous cloud" and the "large pool of elements" are the
>>> same thing. The elements are not produced by the cloud, the elements
>>> *are* the cloud.
>>
>> but wait, Mark said that these stars would have been created and
>> destroyed long before the elements came on the scene. So how come the
>> elements are already on the scene, according to your scenario. Maybe
>> y'all need to get together?
>
> Heavier elements are constructed using nuclear fission, which happens
> inside stars. In order for this material to make its way out of stars,
> stars need to be destroyed. Mark is right.
Proof-reading error: "nuclear fusion", not "nuclear fission"
Al
wrote:
> > universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
> > anything more unified than the separate elements?
>
> elements.
>
Supernovae certainly came after stars. There seems to be a whole lot
of confussion being spewed forth from this Zoe person.
> > If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
> > at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
> > will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
> > inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
> > intelligence.
>
> That was never the physical state of the Universe, and there are no "laws of
> intelligence."
>
All out of sequence, and asking questions that have no meaning due to
the suppositions being wrong. (Zoe) Sounds like a YEC to me.
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:36:20 -0500, Mark VandeWettering
>
Compounds have an amount of energy associated with them. Some
arrangements of atoms have a higher energy than their component atoms,
and those arrangements don't happen. Generally the compound you will
get is the one with the lowest energy. For example, 4 H and 2 O atoms
could combine into two H2 molecules and one O2 molecule. This is
stable at low temperatures. But if you add enough energy to break them
back into 4 H and 2 O, chances are they will recombine into two H2O
molecules, which has a lower energy than two H2 and one O2.
>
> snip>
John McKendry
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:06:26 -0500, Mark VandeWettering
> <wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-10-28, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
>>> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>>>
>>> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
>>> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
>>> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
>>> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>>
>>The formation of elements other than hydrogen and helium aren't
>>particularly less mysterious or more uncertain than hydrogen and helium.
>>Roughly speaking, Light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) were
>>formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang. Heavier elements (through
>>iron) were formed by fusion processes in stars. Even heavier elements
>>by neutron capture in massive stars, or through novas.
>
> okay, we are at the same starting point now. What laws govern the
> formation of compounds from elements? And I don't mean how do they
> form, but on what basis do elements of one kind combine with elements
> of another kind in different arrangements to form different compounds?
> Is there a law that says, oxygen will always combine with hydrogen to
> form water? Okay, that was rhetorical. The answer is no.
>
> Is there a law that says three oxygens will always link up to form
> ozone and refuse to link with hydrogen lurking nearby, thus preventing
> water from being formed at that particular location? No.
>
> If there is no law, on what basis the differentiation?
>
Hi, Zoe. The questions you've been asking are really the subject
matter of a first-year course in chemistry. I recommend asking
your library to get you a couple of books by P.W. Atkins in
the (sadly out of print) Scientific American Library series, one
called "Atoms, Electrons, and Change" and one called "Molecules".
But I'll address the rhetorical questions a little bit:
There is a law that says that if there's hydrogen and oxygen
and at least a specified amount of energy to noodge them together
they will combine to form water. It's also possible, in
some circumstances, to get hydrogen and oxygen to combine
in a different configuration to form hydrogen peroxide, but
peroxide is less stable than water and will reconfigure itself
over time to form water and free oxygen. Similarly it's
possible to force oxygen to form ozone by applying extra
energy, but ozone is unstable and will reconfigure itself
back to regular diatomic oxygen. Mindless atoms do not just
wander around and form random compounds by bumping into one
another. If you're picturing a random mix of Hs and Os flying
around and forming H-O-H, O-O, O-O-O, O-H-H-O, H-O-O-H-O-O,
and on and on indiscriminately, first-year chemistry really
does explain why H-O-H tends to stick together and O-O-O does
not. The stable molecules like water and diatomic oxygen
are low-energy states, while unstable molecules like ozone
are high-energy states that tend to undo themselves like
a sprung mousetrap. There's a nice explanation of why ozone
is unstable at MadSci.org:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-01/1011028250.Ch.r.html
(And H-O-O-H-O-O isn't real, but I couldn't resist typing it.)
>>
>>> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
>>> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
>>> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>>>
>>> N H C C He N O
>>> O C O Li
>>> H N C O
>>> O N Li H He
>>> C C He
>>> H N C O C N
>>> He
>>> O O O H N He C H
>>>
>>> N C H N N H O Li O
>>
>>The distribution isn't close to correct.
>
> of course it is not even close to correct, Mark. This is not meant to
> be an accurate representation, but just a sample idea of random
> distribution of elements as they first come into existence.
>
>>
>>> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
>>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>>
>>No.
>
> why no?
>
>>
>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>> intelligence.
>>
>>I tell you what: you go first. Tell us how this soup of letters
>>becomes you via the laws of intelligence.
>
> well, so far, at this stage in the origin of the universe,
> intelligence is running neck and neck with chemistry and physics, and
> beginning to pull ahead already. It is generally accepted that mental
> activity is capable of combining elements to produce various
> compounds.
>
This is worth addressing. Actually, mental activity cannot
combine elements in any unnatural way. No matter how much
mental activity we apply, the atoms will always and only combine
according to the laws that drive natural reactions. All chemical
synthesis is an application of the natural laws of chemistry;
we get new compounds and new materials not by forcing atoms
to behave contrary to their natural tendencies, but only by
arranging things so that their natural behavior produces the
results we want.
Mental activity can only operate within the confines of the
properties of the materials it works with. When people do
genetic engineering, they don't manipulate molecules with
little nanotweezers; they use natural enzymes that already
have the ability to snip DNA at particular locations. It's
not enough to say "I will now transfer this gene from a
flounder into the potato's genome", you have to find the
combination of natural-law-abiding processes that will make
that happen. Mental processes can create the purpose, and
mental processes can even direct the process by combining
the right chemicals at the right temperature and pressure,
but mental processes by themselves cannot make anything
happen.
I used to be a woodworker. Half the skill of woodworking
is knowing how to use the tools. The other half is knowing
the properties of different woods, knowing what they will
allow you to do with them. No matter how intelligent you
are, you can't make a mattress out of maple.
> Chemistry, on the other hand, though also able to produce reactions
> that form compounds, has not yet been explained by you as to the basis
> on which differentiation occurs in compound formation from a pool of
> elements.
>
> I don't want to move further yet until you present your case.
Best,
John
rupert....@gmail.com
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:53:49 -0400, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>
>
> >Note: the "gaseous cloud" and the "large pool of elements" are the same
> >thing. The elements are not produced by the cloud, the elements *are*
> >the cloud.
>
> but wait, Mark said that these stars would have been created and
> destroyed long before the elements came on the scene. So how come the
> elements are already on the scene, according to your scenario. Maybe
> y'all need to get together?
>
>
>
> >I've read through some of the other responses, and I have to agree with
> >some of the respondents. It would genuinely be helpful at this point if
> >you actually knew some basic chemistry.
>
> I do.
Then why didn't you frame the question in chemical terms that we can
all understand? Are you just trying to waste time*?
* Not that reading TO is ever particularly productive, of course.
Al
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:11:53 -0500, Mark VandeWettering
>
>
> the area that I'm talking about -- not the how of covalent bonding,
> but the differentiation of compounds from a sea of elements, where the
> elements could bind with just about any other element.
>
> Narrowing down the field of elements for illustration purposes,
> suppose there is an area that contains three oxygens and one hydrogen,
> floating around aimlessly:
>
> O H O O
>
> would you expect to get, say, water H2O, with an oxygen left over,
> instead of ozone O3, with the hydrogen left out? Luck and chance? If
> that is your answer, then good, we can move on. But if there is some
> law of chemistry that dictates that in the presence of those elements,
> water will form ahead of ozone or vice versa, then say on.
>
> snip>
As a few others have said, it's not possible to say in any one case.
Due to the various energy levels of the various possible resulting
compounds, we can say which compound mixes are more likely, and thus
when we have say 602000000000000000000 atoms (to pick a number) then
we can say with near certainty how many of each we will end up with.
You might like to take note of the size of the number above. It
roughly represents the number of protons or nuetrons per gram. So for
your mix above, there's about 12.3 grams for that number of atoms. Or
a bit less than half an ounce.
The energy levels, are dependant on the environment (temp, pressure,
radiation etc) that these atoms are in. And represents the stability
of the combinations, more than anything else. Most of the mix you
suggested would normally end up in H2O and O2 (assuming there's more
than 4 atoms, there will be spare O form other combos), but we know
that in the rpesence of strong radiation (or other energy source), we
might end up with more O3, OH, etc.
These questions are really fairly simple chemistry, and the basics are
fairly basic. The details can get very complex, but the basics are
quite easy to come to grips with.
The measure engineering (it's more engineering than science, because
it's statistical) has put on the effective stability of these various
compounds at different densities and pressures is cally entropy.
Al
>
>
> the area that I'm talking about -- not the how of covalent bonding,
> but the differentiation of compounds from a sea of elements, where the
> elements could bind with just about any other element.
>
> Narrowing down the field of elements for illustration purposes,
> suppose there is an area that contains three oxygens and one hydrogen,
> floating around aimlessly:
>
> O H O O
>
> would you expect to get, say, water H2O, with an oxygen left over,
> instead of ozone O3, with the hydrogen left out? Luck and chance? If
> that is your answer, then good, we can move on. But if there is some
> law of chemistry that dictates that in the presence of those elements,
> water will form ahead of ozone or vice versa, then say on.
>
> snip>
As a few others have said, it's not possible to say in any one case.
Klaus H
The laws of chemistry go all the way. They explain all known
compounds.They make useful predictions in how to create chemical
compounds and what their properties would be, as well as indicate how
existing molecules were formed, in general.
Zoe's "Laws of Intelligence" go nowhere.
I hope this helps.
Klaus
Inez
>
> >I tell you what: you go first. Tell us how this soup of letters
> >becomes you via the laws of intelligence.
>
> well, so far, at this stage in the origin of the universe,
> intelligence is running neck and neck with chemistry and physics, and
> beginning to pull ahead already. It is generally accepted that mental
> activity is capable of combining elements to produce various
> compounds.
This isn't very clear. Current scientists do no combine elements
through "mental activity," they simply put chemicals in a position and
condition to react through the laws of chemistry. As far as I know,
mental activity can only apply the laws of chemistry, they cannot go
beyond them.
If you've some evidence that the early universe contained chemicals
that could not have been formed without intelligence you should trot
it right out for us all to look at.
> Chemistry, on the other hand, though also able to produce reactions
> that form compounds, has not yet been explained by you as to the basis
> on which differentiation occurs in compound formation from a pool of
> elements.
I believe the trick is having a huge big wad of space with room enough
for all the compounds. I don't know why you think some had to be
specifically chosen.
Ken Rode
wrote:
> Ken Rode wrote:
> > Zoe wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:05:42 +0000, Ernest Major
>
> >>> In message <l2t9i3h26sov3o7r1on2s63i92nb6pf...@4ax.com>, Zoe
If one looks at the phenomena which define life, and I'm referring
here to homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, response to
stimuli, and reproduction (see the Wikipedia page for Life), these are
all mere chemistry. It would have to be a pretty large book.
Llanzlan Klazmon
>
Sure.
> Would you say that five
> carbons, seven hydrogens, and two oxygens probably happened to bounce
> into each other and formed a sugar molecule in the early universe?
Not like that. The most probable collisions are pairwise. Once a
simple molecule has formed then it in turn may collide with another
atom or molecule. Many of these simple molecules actually form in the
outer layers of reg giant (AGB stars) where the temperature is low
enough for some compounds to be stable. The red giant then sheds it's
outer layers via a solar wind or eventually as a "planetary nebula"
these enrich interstellar space in a rather more gentle way than
supernova detonations. Radio astronomy has detected all sorts of
compounds in outer space, IIRC over one hundred different molecules
(not any sugars as far as i know) but including water and ethanol,
some amino acids etc.
> How
> about four oxygens surrounding a single phosphorus atom; would there
> be a tendency for the oxygens to gravitate more readily to the
> phosphorus to create a phosphate molecule than they would to form a
> sugar molecule?
No. Again a succession of pairwise collisions is much more probable.
The probability of any five fold collision although not zero would be
very small at the density found in a molecular cloud in outer space.
>
> snip>
Perplexed in Peoria
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3vt9i31hh1evotjnr...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:53:01 -0400, "Perplexed in Peoria"
> <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message news:p679i3dc32d0sgfcj...@4ax.com...
>>>I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
>>> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>>>
>>> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
>>> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
>>> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
>>> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>>>
>>> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
>>> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>>>
>>> N H C C He N O
>>> O C O Li
>>> H N C O
>>> O N Li H He
>>> C C He
>>> H N C O C N
>>> He
>>> O O O H N He C H
>>>
>>> N C H N N H O Li O
>>>
>>>
>>> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
>>> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>>
>
> ahhh, here is someone who is not in automatic fight-mode; not afraid
> to appear to agree, if only partially, with the "enemy". Woot.
>
>>But lets add just a little detail just to make sure
>>we are on the same page. Just after the Big Bang, there wasn't much
>>but H and He. Then the first generation of stars formed and eventually
>>went super-nova. Now you have some C, some O, some Fe, and
>>traces of all the other stuff. In the second and later generations of
>>stars, you get planets too, because the Fe and the ices formed from
>>compounds like CO and H2O provide dust grains which stick together
>>in the nebula and eventually grow big enough to become planetesimals.
>>
>>But, looking at the universe as a whole, it is still 98% H and He, even
>>though the other stuff is most common on Earth-sized planets.
>
> okay, I think we are on the same page so far, at least in the area of
> the formation of individual elements. Can you explain, from a
> chemistry and physics basis, what causes these elements to appear in
> more than one type of compound?
I can try. The first molecule to form will be H2, since H is by far the
most common single atom. It will form even before the first generation
of stars once the original Bang has cooled off enough due to expansion.
Then once you have some O atoms floating around, they will bump
into H2 and react to become OH and an H that escapes (to balance
momentum and energy. OH may run into C yielding CO plus an
escaping H again. But if OH runs into H2, you can get H2O with
yet another H flying away. Some of those Hs will recombine to make
more H2, and other Hs will run into C, forming things like CH, leading
eventually to lots of carbon compounds like acetylene, formaldehyde,
and methane.
All of this proceeds very slowly and very randomly. It never even
gets close to chemical equilibrium. Because those supernovas are
throwing fairly concentrated C and O into the H and He background,
different places will have different concentrations of the various atoms,
different places will have different temperatures, etc. It is a real mess.
The key words if you want to look up some of this stuff on the web
are 'gas-phase free radical chemistry' and 'interstellar molecular
clouds'. I hope I addressed your question.
>>> If it is agreed that this was once the physical state of the universe
>>> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
>>> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
>>> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
>>> intelligence.
>>>
>>> Any takers?
>>
>>Sure. Though I admit I haven't really followed your writings on the
>>'laws of intelligence'.
>
> that's okay; my sandbox is not for everyone.
>
>>
>>My version of the story is a little farther along than yours. I already
>>have simple chemical compounds like H2O, CO, CO2, HCN, and CH4,
>>plus some iron and silicates. We can start there, or we can back up to
>>just a bunch of atoms. Your choice.
>
> I want to back up to the elements that consist of like atoms.
I'm not sure what you mean here. You mean diatomic gases like
H2, N2, O2, and F2? Other than H2, you probably won't have
any of those in space. Certainly not O2 or F2. Those will react with
the first H atom or molecule that comes along. You won't have
carbon in the form of graphite, either, though you may get some
things called PAHs that are mostly carbon with some hydrogen
and nitrogen mixed in.
Mark VandeWettering
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:53:49 -0400, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>
>>Note: the "gaseous cloud" and the "large pool of elements" are the same
>>thing. The elements are not produced by the cloud, the elements *are*
>>the cloud.
>
> but wait, Mark said that these stars would have been created and
> destroyed long before the elements came on the scene.
Before *which* elements came on the scene? Before stars formed, the
universe consisted of hydrogen, helium, and a smattering of lithium.
Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and the like are formed by stellar fusion
processes.
> So how come the elements are already on the scene, according to your
> scenario. Maybe y'all need to get together?
Perhaps you should actually address the issues, rather than simply
pretending we said something different.
>>I've read through some of the other responses, and I have to agree with
>>some of the respondents. It would genuinely be helpful at this point if
>>you actually knew some basic chemistry.
>
> I do.
No, Zoe. You don't. You suffer from delusions of adequacy.
>>However, pushing on with your question... Elements in close proximity
>>with each other and with the right energy conditions may combine in ways
>>that we now understand at some level. One of Seppo's posts referred you
>>to a Wikipedia article on valence. I don't guarantee that you'll
>>understand it, but give it a try. If you find it incomprehensible, let
>>me know and I'll see if I can find something easier for you.
>
> thank you kind sir.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
Well, physics and chemistry fueled the industrial revolution.
Your "laws of intelligence" are known only to you, and fuel nothing.
We're done now?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>
>>In message <l2t9i3h26sov3o7r1...@4ax.com>, Zoe
That's funny. I don't think that's what he said at all.
> And this conclusion is a
> reasonable one based on what you have observed about the behavior of
> chemistry and physics in our world today.
>
> On the other hand, my position is that it is equally acceptable, so
> far, to conclude that the formation of compounds can occur through the
> application of mental activity, based on what scientists have been
> observed to do in the building and splitting of compounds in our world
> today.
So, to pick an arbitrary date, five hundred years ago, this WOULDN'T
have been a reasonable conclusion right? After all, scientists didn't
have any understanding of how to build and split compounds before then,
so intelligence wouldn't have been a reasonable conclusion?
> Neither position has the edge at the moment.
Piffle.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>>> immediately after a supernova." Through your knowledge of chemistry,
>>> do you have an explanation for the basis on which elements sort
>>> themselves out into various compounds?
>>
>>It's called "chemistry". You can think of this as a separate field if
>>you like, but it's really just more of the same old physics: in particular
>>it is a basic property of atoms with charge and mass.
>>
>>Certain elements are highly reactive. Others, not so much. For instance.
>>there are certain elements which are called "noble" or "inert" gases.
>>They are helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon. These gases all
>>have a particular property: namely the outermost shell of their electrons
>>are "full": they tend not to exchange electrons with other compounds and
>>so are stable as monatomic gases.
>>
>>The outermost electron shell of carbon, on the other hand, is four
>>electrons short of being full. This means that it very readily forms
>>bonds with other compounds, including itself (forming such different
>>seeming allotropes as diamond, graphite, buckyballs, and nanocylinder)
>>as well as other atoms (hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen) which form the
>>basis of the chemical processes in all living cells.
>
> the area that I'm talking about -- not the how of covalent bonding,
> but the differentiation of compounds from a sea of elements, where the
> elements could bind with just about any other element.
Honestly Zoe, if you weren't so impossibly and resolutely dim witted,
you might have a chance. Elements can't just "bond with just about
any other element". You won't find any "argon oxides". You can't
intelligently design them. They simply don't happen. The reason
you can't find them is precisely for the reason given above: argon is
already in a stable state, with all its electron shells full. It
simply won't bond with anything else. Similarly, you can't form compounds
where a carbon is bound to five other carbon atoms. Or a nitrogen and
and an oxygen. Or five hydrogen atoms.
> Narrowing down the field of elements for illustration purposes,
> suppose there is an area that contains three oxygens and one hydrogen,
> floating around aimlessly:
>
> O H O O
>
> would you expect to get, say, water H2O, with an oxygen left over,
> instead of ozone O3, with the hydrogen left out?
You have to do an analysis which is even less likely that you will
understand, it's more complex. Given that you don't have two hydrogens
in your example, I suspect you won't be forming any water real soon
though.
> Luck and chance? If
> that is your answer, then good, we can move on.
It isn't of course.
> But if there is some
> law of chemistry that dictates that in the presence of those elements,
> water will form ahead of ozone or vice versa, then say on.
There is. It's called "chemistry". That the sum total of knowledge
about chemistry can't be easily summarized in a web posting, especially
in such a form that you could potentially understand it is not a
particularly telling problem for science, nor justification for your
confidence in the "Law of Intelligence", whatever that is.
> snip>
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>>> react with more than one of the other elements and not just combine
>>> only with oxygen, say?
>>
>>The basics of this is covered pretty well in high school chemistry, Zoe.
>>Without getting into the quantum mechanics which underly the process,
>>each atom has a particular arrangement of electrons surrounding the
>>nucleus. These electrons are arranged in a series of shells. Each of
>>these shells fill in order, up until a maximum size, then the a new
>>shell begins again.
>>
>>In the case of carbon, the outermost shell has four electrons, but can
>>hold eight. Simplifying horribly (but perhaps not enough for you to
>>grasp) these "holes" in the outer electron shell are in relatively
>>high energy state, and an atom in such a state is in proximity to in
>>a similar state, there is a tendancy for the two to bind together by
>>sharing an electron and releasing energy. This kind of chemical bond
>>is called a "covalent bond". Because carbon has four gaps in its
>>outermost shell, it has lots of opportunities to form covalent bonds,
>>either with other carbon atoms (say, by forming stable arrangements
>>like diamond, graphite, bucky balls, or nanoyclinders) or with hydrogen,
>>oxygen or nitrogren. (Hydrogen is short one electron, oxygen, two, and
>>nitrogen 3 electrons).
>
> you know your stuff, Mark.
You flatter me. I know virtually nothing about chemistry. But I did
take, pass, and understand high school chemistry.
> A nice, clear explanation. But do you see
> now what I am asking? In a pool of free-floating elements that have
> not yet bonded because they are newborn, is there competition among
> the elements to form different compounds?
That isn't a description I would use, no.
> Would you say that five carbons, seven hydrogens, and two oxygens
> probably happened to bounce into each other and formed a sugar
> molecule in the early universe?
Well, whatever that is, it isn't a sugar. Perhaps you meant C6H12O6?
But yes, it certainly is possible. Sugars are, after all, fairly
simple.
http://www.universetoday.com/html/dailyarchive/article2000-0619.html
> How about four oxygens surrounding a single phosphorus atom; would
> there be a tendency for the oxygens to gravitate more readily to the
> phosphorus to create a phosphate molecule than they would to form a
> sugar molecule?
Certainly one configuration is undoubtably be more likely than the
other. Which is likely to be more likely is rather dependent upon the
pressure, temperature, and relative preponderance of the different
elements.
> snip>
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> wrote:
>
>
> snip>
>
>>I think what you're asking is how do you get from a bunch of atoms
>>wandering around to a bunch of compounds wandering around. Am I right?
>
> yes. How do you propose that this happens. My proposal is that
> mental activity is known to be able to build or split compounds.
Why don't you think us up some argon oxides then.
> I want to see what your proposal of chemistry-and-physics-only can do.
>
>>
>>There are a handful of ways this happens. I'm going to focus on one of
>>them and oversimplify it to the point of getting it to fit into a usenet
>>post.
>>
>>Atoms have electrons, and electrons (being lazy) try to get as close to
>>the nucleus of the atom as possible. But there is only room for a set
>>number of electrons in each available orbit, so the lowest orbit gets
>>filled up first, then the next lowest, etc. The outermost orbit that has
>>any electrons in it is called the valence shell.
>>
>>Let's start with the simplest atom: Hydrogen (H). It only has a single
>>electron, but there's room in the lowest orbit for two.
>>
>>The next level up holds eight electrons, so if you're looking at
>>something like carbon (6 electrons), two electrons will be in the lowest
>>shell and four will be in the next higher shell, leaving room for four
>>more.
>>
>>If a single H and a single C happen to bump into each other, what can we
>>expect to happen? The electron will be *shared* between them, thus
>>forming a covalent bond. If you like, think of it as the single hydrogen
>>electron spending half its time visiting the carbon atom's outer shell and
>>one of the carbon electrons spending half its time running around the
>>hydrogen atom.
>>
>>This still leaves three spaces left for additional electrons on the carbon
>>valence shell, so three more hydrogen atoms can happen along and form
>>bonds as well. At that point, you've got something that looks like:
>>
>> H
>>HCH
>> H
>>
>>or CH4, aka methane. Not surprisingly, we've detected that in
>>interstellar space.
>>
>>Have another look at the list of molecules detected in space. Notice
>>that helium ("He") is not part of any of those compounds. The lowest orbit
>>can only fit two electrons, helium comes equipped with two electrons, and
>>thus it zips around minding its own business. There's no extra slot
>>available for it to share an electron, so it tends not to interact with
>>anything it runs into.
>>
>>Covalent bonds are strong, but they can be broken if enough energy is
>>added. There are several other kinds of bonds....
>>
>>I wish I could come up with a recent popularization of chemistry to
>>recommend to you, but I'm completely drawing a blank. I hesitate to
>>recommend a textbook -- they're really oriented towards someone who wants
>>to make their living doing chemistry, not someone who is curious to find
>>out how the world works.
>
> hey, no need to recommend a simple textbook. Your explanation is
> quite sufficient -- clear and succinct....and interestingly explained.
> Thanks.
Yeah, to make your argument, you don't need to learn anything.
Mark
>>
>>There just aren't amazing new discoveries in basic chemistry anymore --
>>proteins and macromolecules, yes, and certainly in particle physics, but
>>atoms and simple compounds were worked out quite a while ago.
>>
>>(Hopefully, that will provoke an actual chemist to jump in and give a much
>>better answer.)
>
> yours is fine.
>
Mark VandeWettering
><wett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-10-28, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>>>
>>> this discussion is not about cosmology as a whole, but just one aspect
>>> of chemistry.
>>
>>Then why not ask a question about chemistry?
>
> I am.
>
>>>>> I'm looking for your personal application of the data to origins.
>>>>
>>>>Most people aren't so egotistical as to believe that their own
>>>>understanding or misunderstanding of current cosmological theories
>>>>present any kind of constraint on the universe.
>>>
>>> you could use a little of Freedthinker's modest self-confidence, Mark.
>>
>>Freedthinker isn't modest at all. He thinks that his modest and
>>undisciplined musings about science are more accurate than the entire
>>population of earth's scientists. I can see why you might feel some
>>affinity toward him, but you are the ones who suffer an ego problem,
>>not I.
>
> I don't remember Freedthinker claiming that his musings were more
> accurate than the entire population of earth's scientists. All he did
> was state his personal position on the data. Nothing wrong with that.
Selective amnesia, no doubt.
He opened with:
It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination
and comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable
evidence that the following postulates are supported by
an unbiased interpretation of said evidence (interpreting
individual evidences based on the overall impression of the
whole):
* The scientifically observed and catalogued process of
biological evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an
explanation for the diversity of life that is observed today or
can be inferred based on fossilized remains.
* No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests
that any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly
greater than 15,000 years.
* The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a
large- scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of
the earth between four and seven thousand years ago.
His "personal position" is that the entire population of the earth's
scientists are wrong. I can't think of a more egotistical position to
maintain.
> Fortunately, this is not a totalitarian newsgroup, and differences in
> viewpoint can be expressed without condemnation .....
Mark
>
> snip>
>
Ernest Major
<muz...@aol.com> writes
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:05:42 +0000, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <l2t9i3h26sov3o7r1...@4ax.com>, Zoe
>><muz...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>thank you for the pre-history, Mujin, but I really want to start at the
>>>point where the elements have come into existence. What laws of
>>>chemistry and physcis are there that state that certain elements must
>>>always combine with certain other elements?
>>>
>>You give the impression that you have a bad miscomprehension of
>>chemistry. There are *no* laws of chemistry and physics that state the
>>certain elements *must always combine* with certain other elements.
>
>my thought exactly. I just wanted to be clear that there is no
>natural law that states that sugars and phosphates, for instance, must
>line up in repeated links that form a regular and consistent chain
>That is not how luck and chance works.
You'll have to break yourself of the false dichotomy between totally
random and totally invariant results.
There is a natural law that nucleotides, sugars and phosphates form DNA
under certain circumstances. There is not a natural law that
nucleotides, sugars and phosphates exist, never mind form DNA, under all
circumstances.
>and varied, depending on circumstances. And this conclusion is a
>reasonable one based on what you have observed about the behavior of
>chemistry and physics in our world today.
You're still constructing strawmen - varied yes, erratic no (unless you
think erratic is a synonym of varied).
>
>On the other hand, my position is that it is equally acceptable, so
>far, to conclude that the formation of compounds can occur through the
>application of mental activity, based on what scientists have been
>observed to do in the building and splitting of compounds in our world
>today.
It's not the mental activity that's significant - it's the manipulation
of the circumstances in which reactions occur.
>
>Neither position has the edge at the moment.
>
You are implicitly claiming, contrary to evidence (spectra of distant
astronomical objects, for example) that the laws of chemistry were in
the distant past. Even if you claim was true, it doesn't help you -
different chemistry 13.5 billions years ago is not relevant to the
formation of life on the earth 4 billion years ago (dates approximate).
That puts your position way behind - it's been lapped hundreds of times.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<muz...@aol.com> writes
>On 28 Oct 2007 21:13:46 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>snip>
>
>>I think what you're asking is how do you get from a bunch of atoms
>>wandering around to a bunch of compounds wandering around. Am I right?
>
>yes. How do you propose that this happens. My proposal is that
>want to see what your proposal of chemistry-and-physics-only can do.
In the sense you mean, mental activity is *not known* to be able to
build or split compounds. (If someone else wanted to quibble mental
activity indirectly results in the production and description of
synaptic messenger molecules - by purely chemical means.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Kent Paul Dolan
> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the
> possible state of the universe sometime after the
> Big Bang and before the formation of anything more
> unified than the separate elements?
As best I can understand, no.
The original matter was restricted to mostly
hydrogen, a small fraction of helium, and a tiny
trace of lithium. Every other element was born in
stars, either in normal fusion, up to iron, or in
nova and supernova, beyond iron. In either case, a
star had to die to spread the elements needed for a
rocky planet like earth back into space out of the
star interior. You could make gas giant planets out
of the original matter, but not rocky planets.
HTH
xanthian.
Ernest Major
<alw...@optusnet.com.au> writes
old-universe, young-earth, young-life, creationist.)
--
alias Ernest Major
The Enigmatic One
says...
>
>
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:53:49 -0400, Ken Rode <kar...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>
>>Note: the "gaseous cloud" and the "large pool of elements" are the same
>>thing. The elements are not produced by the cloud, the elements *are*
>>the cloud.
>
>but wait, Mark said that these stars would have been created and
>elements are already on the scene, according to your scenario. Maybe
>y'all need to get together?
Holy shit!
You're amazingly stupid!
-Tim
Ernest Major
VandeWettering <wett...@attbi.com> writes
>
>Honestly Zoe, if you weren't so impossibly and resolutely dim witted,
>you might have a chance. Elements can't just "bond with just about any
>other element". You won't find any "argon oxides". You can't
>intelligently design them. They simply don't happen. The reason you
>can't find them is precisely for the reason given above: argon is
>already in a stable state, with all its electron shells full. It
>simply won't bond with anything else. Similarly, you can't form
>compounds where a carbon is bound to five other carbon atoms. Or a
>nitrogen and and an oxygen. Or five hydrogen atoms.
>
The old ideas of valency are a simplification.
* We don't get Argon Oxides (but Xenon Oxides do exist), but there is a
little Argon chemistry.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCPS
A6000119000013006415000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
See also, if you stretch the concept of compound, argon clathrates.
* With regards to C, N and O, I think you meant compounds composed
solely of a carbon atom bonded solely to a nitrogen atom and an oxygen
atom - there are plenty of compounds containing N-C-O moeities (e.g.
cyanato groups). Even so, there is the cyanate ion, and I expect that
the neutral CNO molecule is stable in molecular clouds (my google-fu
isn't up to finding a reference)
* A carbon atom bound to five hydrogen atoms exists in the methanium ion
(see also carbonium) CH5+. Analogously to tetramethylammonium you could
have pentamethylmethanium, which would be a carbon bound to five other
carbon atoms, but again my google-fu doesn't seem to be up to a
citation.
--
alias Ernest Major
Llanzlan Klazmon
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:53:01 -0400, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
>
>
> >"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:p679i3dc32d0sgfcj...@4ax.com...
> >>I would like to work with the current understanding of the Big Bang
> >> activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence.
>
> >> Taking it for granted that there is no certain answer as to how the
> >> elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen
> >> -- but that they most assuredly made their appearance eventually
> >> (maybe from supernovas), I would like to work from that point on.
>
> >> Okay, so here we have some basic elements distributed randomly
> >> throughout the universe, and in great quantity. Space would look
> >> something like this, multiplied many many times over, I guess?
>
> >> N H C C He N O
> >> O C O Li
> >> H N C O
> >> O N Li H He
> >> C C He
> >> H N C O C N
> >> He
> >> O O O H N He C H
>
> >> N C H N N H O Li O
>
> >> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
> >> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>
>
> ahhh, here is someone who is not in automatic fight-mode; not afraid
> to appear to agree, if only partially, with the "enemy". Woot.
>
> >But lets add just a little detail just to make sure
> >we are on the same page. Just after the Big Bang, there wasn't much
> >but H and He. Then the first generation of stars formed and eventually
> >went super-nova. Now you have some C, some O, some Fe, and
> >traces of all the other stuff. In the second and later generations of
> >stars, you get planets too, because the Fe and the ices formed from
> >compounds like CO and H2O provide dust grains which stick together
> >in the nebula and eventually grow big enough to become planetesimals.
>
> >But, looking at the universe as a whole, it is still 98% H and He, even
> >though the other stuff is most common on Earth-sized planets.
>
> okay, I think we are on the same page so far, at least in the area of
> the formation of individual elements. Can you explain, from a
> chemistry and physics basis, what causes these elements to appear in
> more than one type of compound?
It is mainly to do with energy. A simple example is two hydrogen atoms
colliding. Each atom in this case is identical, consisting of one
positively charged proton and one negatively charged electron, meaning
that each atom is electrically neutral. When they approach close
enough, each electron can "feel" the electric field of the proton in
the other atom and each electron may then end up bound to the pair of
protons, making a system that is overall electrically neutral. It
turns out the the energy of the combined system is lower than the
energy of two separate hydrogen atoms, so when the two hydrogen atoms
combine to form a hydrogen molecule, energy is emitted in the form of
electromagnetic radiation. To break the hydrogen molecule apart you
have to put in this same quantity of energy. The reason the energy is
lower is explained by quantum theory, which is beyond the scope of
this thread. However the reason atoms and molecules form the way they
do, follows on from this basic idea. You can however get a grasp of it
without understanding the quantum theory behind it. For example if you
try the same collision as above with two helium atoms they will not
combine as the combined state is no longer a lower energy. By rote you
can learn that the reason for this is that the two electrons in a
Helium atom fill the available ground quantum state so there is no way
to reconfigure the system to a lower energy. Here's some background
reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Klazmon
Max
<snip>
>
> Is this a correct understanding so far as to the possible state of the
> universe sometime after the Big Bang and before the formation of
> anything more unified than the separate elements?
>
> at some point after the Big Bang, I would like to see which theory
> will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, organic and
> inorganic, using the laws of physics and chemistry versus the laws of
> intelligence.
>
As you have already discovered, it is not agreed. But I'm curious,
what laws of intelligence? Surely you're not saying it's a
psychological question.
Greg Guarino
>It is generally accepted that mental
>activity is capable of combining elements to produce various
>compounds.
It is not generally accepted, and as far as I know, is not true. What
you seem to mean is that human beings have managed to manufacture
certain compounds. This is, in a limited way, true. But how do we
"manufacture" them? Do we move electrons around to stitch atoms
together in whatever order we choose?
No, we have studied how chemical processes tend to work under certain
circumstances and we try to replicate those circumstances
(ingredients, pressure, temperature, catalysts) to produce the results
we want.
In short, our mental activity has allowed us to learn things about how
chemistry works without mental activity.
Greg Guarino
Mujin
news:slrnfib49q.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org:
> On 2007-10-29, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2007 21:13:46 GMT, Garamond Lethe
>> <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip>
>>
>>>I think what you're asking is how do you get from a bunch of atoms
>>>wandering around to a bunch of compounds wandering around. Am I
>>>right?
>>
>> yes. How do you propose that this happens. My proposal is that
>> mental activity is known to be able to build or split compounds.
>
> Why don't you think us up some argon oxides then.
Argon oxides? No, but:
Leonid Khriachtchev, Mika Pettersson, Nino Runeberg, Jan Lundell & Markku
Rasanen "A stable argon compound" Nature 406, 874-876 (24 August 2000)
http://www.nature.com.proxy1.lib.umanitoba.ca/nature/journal/v406/n6798/abs
/406874a0.html
[snip]