Christians Muslims Atheists. Who really is growing faster?

[flip]

Jeff, do you really want me to take every statement you have made in this thread and put them all together? You are right, that is your only contribution here, to referee. I could show you in every instance except maybe one, where there was an inflammatory remark made before I said anything in "return".
You don't have the stomach for creative thought, and don't ever accuse me or another Christian here of being closed-minded. You evolutionists are exactly the same way, you see things superficially, how about we exam things on a sub-atomic level, and see how these changes could have occurred.

[Jeff250]

I think you should, but people would be much less frustrated in this thread if you learned about this stuff by asking questions instead of taking a radical position in a topic you're unfamiliar with and then arguing with everyone about it before you have a good bearing. Is that fair?

[flip]

Tht hasn't even happened yet. I have not been able to develop ONE hypothesis, because it is immediately shot down before it is even allowed to develop. Everything I have said so far breaks no laws and is entirely possible. You just can't see it because you have OCD and no one else has ever done it before. I gave you at least 10-12 different topics we could explore the possibilities of which before they are even considered are shot down for heresy. Again, would you like to explore the possibilities of evolution by examining it on an atomic scale? Or the possibility of firing an energy charge at an excited atmosphere, kinda like Sky Pong. Or the possibility of using concentrated energy to put or remove crafts from orbit? There's loads more there to explore, and as long as it does not violate the laws of nature and physics, it is entirely possible to achieve. Unless you are un-inspired.

[flip]

SInce electromagnetic energy basically spreads out in all direction, to make a pure photon beam, it would probably take high powered lasers encapsulating the energy beam to be able to focus that energy and to separate the electrons.

[flip]

Here are the laws.

A SIMPLE VIEW OF ATOMIC STRUCTURE


This page revises the simple ideas about atomic structure that you will have come across in an introductory chemistry course (for example, GCSE). You need to be confident about this before you go on to the more difficult ideas about the atom which under-pin A'level chemistry.


The sub-atomic particles

Protons, neutrons and electrons.

relative mass relative charge
proton 1 +1
neutron 1 0
electron 1/1836 -1
Beyond A'level: Protons and neutrons don't in fact have exactly the same mass - neither of them has a mass of exactly 1 on the carbon-12 scale (the scale on which the relative masses of atoms are measured). On the carbon-12 scale, a proton has a mass of 1.0073, and a neutron a mass of 1.0087.

The behaviour of protons, neutrons and electrons in electric fields

What happens if a beam of each of these particles is passed between two electrically charged plates - one positive and one negative? Opposites will attract.

Protons are positively charged and so would be deflected on a curving path towards the negative plate.

Electrons are negatively charged and so would be deflected on a curving path towards the positive plate.

Neutrons don't have a charge, and so would continue on in a straight line.


Exactly what happens depends on whether the beams of particles enter the electric field with the various particles having the same speeds or the same energies

If the particles have the same energy

If beams of the three sorts of particles, all with the same energy, are passed between two electrically charged plates:

Protons are deflected on a curved path towards the negative plate.

Electrons are deflected on a curved path towards the positive plate.

The amount of deflection is exactly the same in the electron beam as the proton beam if the energies are the same - but, of course, it is in the opposite direction.

Neutrons continue in a straight line.



If the electric field was strong enough, then the electron and proton beams might curve enough to hit their respective plates.


If the particles have the same speeds

If beams of the three sorts of particles, all with the same speed, are passed between two electrically charged plates:

Protons are deflected on a curved path towards the negative plate.

Electrons are deflected on a curved path towards the positive plate.

If the electrons and protons are travelling with the same speed, then the lighter electrons are deflected far more strongly than the heavier protons.

Neutrons continue in a straight line.



Note: This is potentially very confusing! Most chemistry sources that talk about this give either one or the other of these two diagrams without any comment at all - they don't specifically say that they are using constant energy or constant speed beams. But it matters!
If this is on your syllabus, it is important that you should know which version your examiners are going to expect, and they probably won't tell you in the syllabus. You should look in detail at past questions, mark schemes and examiner's reports which you can get from your examiners if you are doing a UK-based syllabus. Information about how to do this is on the syllabuses page.

If in doubt, I suggest you use the second (constant speed) version. This actually produces more useful information about both masses and charges than the constant energy version.


The nucleus

The nucleus is at the centre of the atom and contains the protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are collectively known as nucleons.

Virtually all the mass of the atom is concentrated in the nucleus, because the electrons weigh so little.


Working out the numbers of protons and neutrons

No of protons = ATOMIC NUMBER of the atom

The atomic number is also given the more descriptive name of proton number.

No of protons + no of neutrons = MASS NUMBER of the atom

The mass number is also called the nucleon number.


This information can be given simply in the form:



How many protons and neutrons has this atom got?

The atomic number counts the number of protons (9); the mass number counts protons + neutrons (19). If there are 9 protons, there must be 10 neutrons for the total to add up to 19.


The atomic number is tied to the position of the element in the Periodic Table and therefore the number of protons defines what sort of element you are talking about. So if an atom has 8 protons (atomic number = , it must be oxygen. If an atom has 12 protons (atomic number = 12), it must be magnesium.

Similarly, every chlorine atom (atomic number = 17) has 17 protons; every uranium atom (atomic number = 92) has 92 protons.


Isotopes

The number of neutrons in an atom can vary within small limits. For example, there are three kinds of carbon atom 12C, 13C and 14C. They all have the same number of protons, but the number of neutrons varies.

protons neutrons mass number
carbon-12 6 6 12
carbon-13 6 7 13
carbon-14 6 8 14
These different atoms of carbon are called isotopes. The fact that they have varying numbers of neutrons makes no difference whatsoever to the chemical reactions of the carbon.

Isotopes are atoms which have the same atomic number but different mass numbers. They have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons.


The electrons

Working out the number of electrons

Atoms are electrically neutral, and the positiveness of the protons is balanced by the negativeness of the electrons. It follows that in a neutral atom:

no of electrons = no of protons

So, if an oxygen atom (atomic number = has 8 protons, it must also have 8 electrons; if a chlorine atom (atomic number = 17) has 17 protons, it must also have 17 electrons.

The arrangement of the electrons

The electrons are found at considerable distances from the nucleus in a series of levels called energy levels. Each energy level can only hold a certain number of electrons. The first level (nearest the nucleus) will only hold 2 electrons, the second holds 8, and the third also seems to be full when it has 8 electrons. At GCSE you stop there because the pattern gets more complicated after that.
These levels can be thought of as getting progressively further from the nucleus. Electrons will always go into the lowest possible energy level (nearest the nucleus) - provided there is space.

To work out the electronic arrangement of an atom

Look up the atomic number in the Periodic Table - making sure that you choose the right number if two numbers are given. The atomic number will always be the smaller one.

This tells you the number of protons, and hence the number of electrons.

Arrange the electrons in levels, always filling up an inner level before you go to an outer one.

e.g. to find the electronic arrangement in chlorine

The Periodic Table gives you the atomic number of 17.

Therefore there are 17 protons and 17 electrons.

The arrangement of the electrons will be 2, 8, 7 (i.e. 2 in the first level, 8 in the second, and 7 in the third).

The electronic arrangements of the first 20 elements



After this the pattern alters as you enter the transition series in the Periodic Table.

Two important generalisations

If you look at the patterns in this table:

The number of electrons in the outer level is the same as the group number. (Except with helium which has only 2 electrons. The noble gases are also usually called group 0 - not group 8.) This pattern extends throughout the Periodic Table for the main groups (i.e. not including the transition elements).

So if you know that barium is in group 2, it has 2 electrons in its outer level; iodine (group 7) has 7 electrons in its outer level; lead (group 4) has 4 electrons in its outer level.

Noble gases have full outer levels. This generalisation will need modifying for A'level purposes.

Dots-and-crosses diagrams

In any introductory chemistry course you will have come across the electronic structures of hydrogen and carbon, for example, drawn as:



Note: There are many places where you could still make use of this model of the atom at A'level. It is, however, a simplification and can be misleading. It gives the impression that the electrons are circling the nucleus in orbits like planets around the sun. As you will find when you look at the A'level view of the atom, it is impossible to know exactly how they are actually moving.

The circles show energy levels - representing increasing distances from the nucleus. You could straighten the circles out and draw the electronic structure as a simple energy diagram.

Carbon, for example, would look like this:



Thinking of the arrangement of the electrons in this way makes a useful bridge to the A'level view.

Note: If you have come to this page as a UK GCSE student (or a student on a similar introductory chemistry course elsewhere) and want some more help, you may be interested in my GCSE Chemistry book. This link will take you to a page describing it.


Where would you like to go now?

To the atomic properties menu . . .

To the atomic structure and bonding menu . . .

To Main Menu . . .



© Jim Clark 2000 (last updated July 2010)

[fliptw]

Here are the laws...

Thats a basic description of the atom. I'm not seeing how this relates to your hypothesis of nuclear testing magically increasing the amount of carbon-14 in archeological samples, or how neutrinos cause nuclear fission slowly.

[flip]

I never said anything about neutrinos causing nuclear fission slowly. I still think that nuclear testing skewed testing because of the way matter is made.

[fliptw]

have you read the wikipedia page on carbon-14?

[flip]

Have you read how carbon is formed?

[Foil]

Suggestion: flip, try asking fliptw what he does for a living.

[flip]

Then he knows exactly what I'm saying then.

The abundance of 14C in the atmosphere and in living organisms is almost constant, but decreases predictably in their bodies after death

Where did the dramatic increase of C14 go after it was artificially produced by Nuclear testing?

[fliptw]

oh boy. you didn't read the article I suggested you read flip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

[flip]

The first nuclear weapon was detonated as a test by the United States at the Trinity site on July 16, 1945, with a yield approximately equivalent to 20 kilotons. The first hydrogen bomb, codenamed "Mike", was tested at the Enewetak atoll in the Marshall Islands on November 1 (local date) in 1952, also by the United States.

Your chart starts at 1955.

[fliptw]

Not my chart dude. One could surmise that they only started monitoring in 1955(radio-carbon dating itself wasn't pioneered until 1949)- but the chart does demonstrate the rise and fall of atmospheric carbon-14 that occurred during the years of nuclear testing.

Regardless, as previously stated in this thread, and in the section, that the carbon-14 produced is ultimately absorbed by living organisms during the 50 or so years of testing.

You still need to detail a mechanism that would allow the carbon-14 produced during that period to compromise archeological samples undiscovered at that point.

[flip]

That's true. This is what I think. Just as the same way the increase of Carbon14 was absorbed other isotopes from transuranium elements were also. On an atomic-level.

So far, essentially all the transuranium elements have been produced at three laboratories

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

Now I base this on the fact that these transuranium elements were all produced in a lab. Up to that point, Scientists had already identified the basic elements up to the point of uranium, but nothing further until manipulated in a lab. Then after creating or at least re-producing neptunium and plutonium, Scientists start finding them in nature. These things were only produced in 3 labs, I'm sure they were not carried back and forth to work in backpacks, yet then they start appearing in nature. It's that mechanism I'm after. Because that means that somehow on a sub-atomic level, these elements some how found there way out of the lab and into surrounding matter just as C14 does.

[fliptw]

That's true. This is what I think. Just as the same way the increase of Carbon14 was absorbed other isotopes from transuranium elements were also. On an atomic-level.

How exactly? How does transuranium elements get absorbed and turn into carbon-14?

[Krom]

flip, you do realize that when the periodic table was first conceived some of the elements on it were only theorized to exist because there were gaps between the individual atomic weights? Some of these newly discovered elements might have been made in the lab first and then after we knew what to look for; more easily discovered in nature.

[flip]

I didn't say that. Since these are isotopes that comprise these elements, I would expect them to absorb into uranium. Since they would be most like uranium. Their like kind.

[flip]

Krom, No, they are all man-made in their present states. Either through Nuclear reaction or particle acceleration.

EDIT: Uranium was discovered in 1789.

[Tebo]

So far, essentially all the transuranium elements have been produced at three laboratories

That sentence may be a bit missleading, it's in the section "Discovery and naming of transuranium elements" of the "Transuranium element" article in wikipedia and likely only refers to where the elements were first discovered or applies just to the heavier elements (hence the essentially).

The lighter transuranic elements are produced in any operating nuclear reactor as well as in nuclear explosions.
From here:

Synthetic elements, such as einsteinium and fermium, created by neutron bombardment of uranium and plutonium during thermonuclear explosions, were discovered in the aftermath of the first thermonuclear bomb test. In 2008 the worldwide presence of new isotopes from atmospheric testing beginning in the 1950s was developed into a reliable way of detecting art forgeries, as all paintings created after that period may contain traces of cesium-137 and strontium-90, isotopes that did not exist in nature before 1945.

Now if a historical sample was contanimated by artifical elements this would be easy to measure and the sample could be disregarded.
So for there to be a problem with dating, the sample would have to be contanimated by only some elements and not others or it would be obvious.


EDIT:

flip, you do realize that when the periodic table was first conceived some of the elements on it were only theorized to exist because there were gaps between the individual atomic weights? Some of these newly discovered elements might have been made in the lab first and then after we knew what to look for; more easily discovered in nature.

Nah, as far as I know most of the transuranics only occure in very small traces, since their halflive is short compared to the age of the solar system. Such elements only exist on earth in significant amounts if they have longer lived isotopes higher up in their decay chain, I don't think that's the case for transuranics.

[flip]

We can agree that IF they had ever existed before, the only existence of them now has been created in a lab? In other words, we know it's possible that they COULD have existed because we now understand the process, BUT, they didn't exist until produced in a lab.

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

?

[fliptw]

flip, do you know what an isotope is?

[flip]

Jeez man, dispute what I said, I think we all know definitions by now

EDIT: ROFL Let me Google that for you .

[fliptw]

Jesus man, dispute what I said, I think we all know definitions by now

Isotope's don't work that way. Atoms don't absorb atoms, nor can they self-convert into other arbitrary atoms, thus we can conclude that carbon-14 from nuclear testing can't comprise samples that were not exposed during nuclear tests.

[Tebo]

We can agree that IF they had ever existed before, the only existence of them now has been created in a lab? In other words, we know it's possible that they COULD have existed because we now understand the process, BUT, they didn't exist until produced in a lab.

Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

?

Yes, pretty much all transuranics on earth were created artificially, although that includes nuclear weapons too. Exceptions are the natural reactors at oklo (there might be more that haven't been found).

[flip]

Ok let's forget the word isotopes. let's work on that mechanic in which C14 gets incorporated into every living thing. Then apply that same principal to the other groups of atom's.

[Tebo]

fliptw, I think he's just saying different uranium isotopes get absorbed into the existing uranium the same way new C14 gets absorbed into all the other carbon, changing the ratio of different isotopes, not that the uranium turns into carbon or vice versa.

[flip]

Yes.

Let me also say I have nothing against a 4.5 billion year old earth. Actually makes more sense to me. But seeing as how matter is created by particle acceleration too..................

[fliptw]

Ok let's forget the word isotopes. let's work on that mechanic in which C14 gets incorporated into every living thing. Then apply that same principal to the other groups of atom's.

People call that chemistry. All isotopes of carbon behave chemically in the same way as regular carbon.

living things generally ingest carbon from other living things.

Except we are talking about non-living things gaining in carbon-14.

[flip]

We are also talking about contamination of all matter on an atomic level.

[fliptw]

We are also talking about contamination of all matter on an atomic level.

Of which you have not provided a mechanism on how that's supposed to happen.

You are basically saying that nuclear test does alchemy on everything. Does that make sense to you?

[flip]

The mechanism by which C14 is absorbed into all living things.

[fliptw]

The mechanism by which C14 is absorbed into all living things.

Which only affects matter that is consumed by living things. Bite into an apple you are consuming carbon. You know, eating, a biological process.

[flip]

Flat-earther

[Top Gun]

Flat-earther

...what the hell...

[flip]

It was a joke dude. Just a little cutting up between friends. Besides that, I know Tebo sees what i'm talking about. We are talking about things on an atomic level.

EDIT: How do trees eat?

[fliptw]

photosynthesis and sucking it up thru their roots.

you do realize that this line of thinking will not lead you to a mechanism that operates on all matter in the manner your wishful thinking dictates.

[Ferno]

so flip, since you understand a lot about radiation, nuclei destruction and EM decay, can you tell us how a superdense amount of mass can interact with an electrical drive while dealing with the effects of antimatter generation? and with that, is there a possibility of containing the resultant and spontaneous dissolution of the surrounding atoms?

[flip]

That's true. This is what I think. Just as the same way the increase of Carbon14 was absorbed other isotopes from transuranium elements were also. On an atomic-level.

Quote:
So far, essentially all the transuranium elements have been produced at three laboratories

Quote:
Those that can be found on Earth now are artificially generated synthetic elements, via nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.


Now I base this on the fact that these transuranium elements were all produced in a lab. Up to that point, Scientists had already identified the basic elements up to the point of uranium, but nothing further until manipulated in a lab. Then after creating or at least re-producing neptunium and plutonium, Scientists start finding them in nature. These things were only produced in 3 labs, I'm sure they were not carried back and forth to work in backpacks, yet then they start appearing in nature. It's that mechanism I'm after. Because that means that somehow on a sub-atomic level, these elements some how found there way out of the lab and into surrounding matter just as C14 does.

What I'm looking for is a reason why and how neptunium and plutonium started making deposits in the earth while being artificially created in a lab. There has to be a way to get from Point A to Point B. One topic at a time Ferno.

[Ferno]

What I'm looking for is a reason why and how neptunium and plutonium started making deposits in the earth while being artificially created in a lab. There has to be a way to get from Point A to Point B. One topic at a time Ferno.

We're talking about the same thing.