Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen."
Only one minor correction for this kid. The earth is made mostly of hydrogen and oxygen, in the form of water. Then its core is made of molten iron, and the crust is made silicon dioxide. Carbon and nitrogen are also important, but carbon is not what the earth is mostly made of.
“Because of that,” he continued, “that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.”
I think he is confused. Carbon fused together? He assumes that matter fuses to create life? Or does he mean elementary particles fusing together into carbon atoms? I think he is confusing one thing with another. Well, he is 12 years old. I would advise him to look at the chemistry starting from the core to the surface of a star, and then look at what most elements are made of. Then I would say, what about the carbon in comets and meteorites? I think he is a brilliant kid, with a lot of learning to do. However, I would remind him that mathematical equations are not nature, they are merely a linguistic representation that tries to match what we see in nature. The Big Bang as a theory makes some big assumptions such as the Cosmologial Principle and the universality of physical laws. To prove the Big Bang wrong one would have to disprove those two underlying assumptions. The Big Bang also requires space of uniform curvature (elliptic, hyperbolic or Euclidean space). If one could prove that space near a singularity is not uniform, then the Big Bang theory would fall apart. Well, I am no specialist in the subject. One of these days I might look at the math for it, and convince myself that it is not all bullocks or wishful thinking!