DescentBB

Capm wrote:Discuss why or why not this could be.

The Earth's orbit stays roughly the same in human terms because there is no significant outside force acting on it within a humans frame of reference. Basically if you could wait a few trillion years you would see the orbit decay entirely or be significantly different than it is today.

I think the 2 main factors are velocity and gravitational pull. You have to strike a balance between those 2. Now how all 9 planets accomplished that is a bit of a mystery. They would basically have to determine their velocity according to size and distance away from the Sun.

I think your question has to lead to exactly what space is made of. My understanding is that it is a vacuum and the atomic makeup is sparse, which is why I started leaning towards energy as a determining force. Although, space itself does have to be made of something on an atomic level. I wonder if you could compress space?

flip wrote:EDIT: I guess another way of looking at it is that energy still has mass and matter still carries energy, they are never completely without the other.

Flip I think you are just talking about the equivalence principal.

Capm wrote:Of course, for this to make sense, since the galaxy itself rotates, one would have to postulate that space itself moves, and can be compressed and stretched, and molded... sort of gelatinous ?

Space is completely uneven everywhere you look. It gets warped by mass. Yes, the Earth revolves around the Sun because it's mass warps space. This warping diverts the direction of our planet, which wants to go in a straight line. If you suddenly removed the Sun the Earth would shoot out of the galaxy in a straight line (well, unless it encountered another massive body which would curve the trajectory).

Here is a nice talk by Lawrence Krauss that might inspire some of you.

Maybe, but more simply put, even though matter and energy cannot be destroyed, they can only transition between those 2 forms, they never totally change into one or the other. Energy is still a particle of matter, and when those particles form into matter, they still retain their energy. So, whatever that is called

I think you have to take into account that the Sun is also moving at breakneck speed, so even if the gravitational pull on the Earth is immense, it is still trying to run away at the same time. Take the moon for instance, although Earth is the larger body, the moon still exerts a gravitational pull on the Earth. Maybe it's velocity in relation to the Earth's velocity is a factor there. Then you actually have the Sun pulling away on both while at the same time blasting an energy stream back towards them. Hehe, fun stuff, but there's a lot to consider.

EDIT: In fact, if we are orbiting the Sun as it orbits the galactic center, we are actually always moving through new ground, albeit very slowly. Takes about 250 million years I think.

flip wrote:No, Ferno, if you would remember correctly, I actually proved you to be a liar on .com when you deleted my post in the multiplayer section and then lied about the reason.

Still can't let it go, huh? Why don't you tell all these nice people what your post was.

*Yawn. Why don't you?

EDIT: LOL, yes, I blame the drugs and alcohol on my extreme reaction, but I am laughing my arse off too. LOL, Good stuff. I'll tell you what happened. I was trying to explain my thoughts on Neptunium. It turned into a complete pissing contest which eventually ended up getting out of hand. It boiled down to disagreeing on the grounds I posted above and then the post got locked, so I couldn't get the last word . Then a couple of my posts were actually moved, but I didn't notice the PM's saying they were moved and I assumed they were deleted also. So, my thread got locked for refusing to accept everyone's explanation, then I thought a few of my posts were deleted(though not in reality) then Ferno deletes a resonse I made to Obi in the multiplayer section that had nothing to do with anything in E&C. So, I thought, you jokers like to delete stuff, here! Lol! In truth, Ferno was actually the only one who deleted my posts, the same one twice. Obi was having perceived problems with the Rangers at the time, and I told him that like in all groups, there are always some douchebags but most are good people. Let it drop. Had nothing to do with anyone personally. I was trying to make peace. This is exactly what I wrote, twice, and ferno kept deleting it.

Obi, I'm 98.6% sure that most are cool and some are douchebags. Get over it

Problem was, He couldn't remember exactly what I had written, which was nowhere near worthy of being deleted, but still tried to characterize me as writing something offensive. I think the only reason he did it was because we were all stirred up at the time So, I went to .com where my posts could not be edited or deleted so it could be sorted out.

Obi, I'm 98.6% sure that most are cool and some are douchebags. Get over it

Meaning, everybody's human, don't disparage the Rangers over 1 or 2.
I can't help your daft.

Plus, you guys have a habit of enforcing your own fundamental views by way of force, rather than debate. So, it was no way near the first time happened

The part in bold is exactly what I wrote, the rest was just further explanation as to what I meant, as if it was needed so Ferno responds thusly:

you can lie to the others, you can lie to yourself. but you can't lie to me.

you seriously trying to tell us going on a 40+ post or whatever it was rampage was done while you were sober? come on. i've been around enough drunk and half-cocked people to know the difference.

why would i say anything bad about them
okay now you're just making stuff up. I never accused you of saying anything bad about the rangers. I am talking about making a nut cut to a single person. like that "i can't help your daft" part. I even told you, that if you left that out, the rest of the post would have been fine. How do you expect someone will respond to that? think they're going to go 'oh that's just flip being flip'. no. it'll just start another flamewar. Is this really that complicated for you?

yes, i realize this is a stupid internet fight with a sopping wet bag of a person with the intelligence of a five-year old but sometimes.. people just need a good penis whack from time to time.

Basically, what he actually removed, shouldn't have been and using my explanation of what I wrote, as the justification for doing so! Heh, aside from that, I can't believe how bad a potty mouth I had at the time and for that I do apologize, but not to Ferno, He's still a douchebag j/k. No really

LOL, This is the link I posted. One in every forum.

[youtube]tJVKHZ3l380[/youtube]

When has it ever been acceptable to spam any board with drunken behaviour and to attack another member unprovoked?

All I asked you to do was to be civil to another person, and you couldn't even do that. But I guess that's the cry of the shitdisturber. Create a problem, then point the finger at someone else. *shrug*

Flip, watch the video I linked to above. Also, you still have a misunderstanding of some basic concepts in physics. I can help you there with the following link:

HyperPhysics

I stumbled upon this site in the late 90's. (Looking at the source of the page it says copyright 1998, which seems about when I found it). The site is hosted by the Physics and Astronomy Department of Georgia State University. It is broken into key concepts that build on previous ones. You can start anywhere in the map. If you don't understand something you can back up through the concepts until you understand, then move forward again. I've used this site many times to educate myself and I think it does a better job than Wikipedia -- and certainly better than some random hack's website like that "Gravity quantum" page. (Also, this is by far the oldest active bookmark in my browser!)

Flip, you may have to unlearn some of what you know to get a better understanding of what is possible and not possible. But after you do it will help you think clearer and explain your concepts better. Part of that has to do with using scientific terms correctly.

Yeah, I'll give it a look over. No doubt I don't have the vocabulary that others have, just a picture in my head. I usually have to go looking for the definitions of what I'm picturing. Yeah, the Neptunium thread should have been confined on a quantum level, because that was the scale I was looking at. Spooky action at a distance and all.

Ferno, jeez man. You still don't seem to get it so I'll spell it out. I never said anything offensive to Obi, he is a friend of mine. I talk to him on mumble and facebook regularly. You deleted my post out of spite and douchebaggery, twice, and now you still keep trying to salvage yourself somehow . No wonder I can't have a discussion with you about abstract concepts, you can't even understand plain English.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:31 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ferno said: like that "i can't help your daft" part. I even told you, that if you left that out, the rest of the post would have been fine.

Flip said: Lol, couldn't resist. That's the whole issue dipshit, that wasn't in what you deleted. Daft is a nice way of saying stupid

This should have been over right then, and I chose not to make an issue of it, but here it is over a year later and your still trying to argue from a outright lie. I caught you in it. Where do you fail to understand that? Just drop it. When I said "I can't help your daft" I was talking about you

yeah that's right, I just want to make your life a living hell here flip. /sarcasm

Come on. It's time to let it go.

No wonder I can't have a discussion with you about abstract concepts, you can't even understand plain English.

Don't you think it's kind of odd that I can have a discussion about abstract concepts with everyone here... except you?

Ferno can have a discussion? Did I wake up in the twilight zone?

I have yet to see one Your biggest problem is having an honest discussion. As far as making my life hell, Hah, more spin. I enjoy heated debate

[youtube]5AVHXMLDvWA[/youtube]

[youtube]Zcef943eoiQ[/youtube]

In light of the fact you have a history of posting while under the influence (see: weed), become argumentative with people who disagree with you (see: every science thread you created), have issues separating fantasy from reality (see: treknobabble thread) and that you can't accept responsibility for what you have done, you're really not in a position to second-guess anyone at this point in time, flip.

Hehe, first off, it's not a guess, it's in black and white. Secondly, this is the second 'science' thread I have ever started in 7 years, and thirdly, your a pathetic excuse for a mod.

flip wrote:...this is the second 'science' thread I have ever started...

2/2 = 100%

This may be only the second individual thread that you yourself have started, but you've definitely followed similar posting habits in various threads by other people over the years.

Where? I still stand by both of these threads.

It's stupid to think that every single thing in the Universe emits energy and then to say it has no effect at all and

Though traces of neptunium have subsequently been found in nature, where it is not primeval but produced by neutron-induced transmutation reactions in uranium ores

Which is not a form of decay, which is a natural process. All those free neutrons came from somewhere and you will not find anywhere that says neutron-induced transmutation is not an artificial process, because well, it's an artificial process. I'm bored with you guys, because the fact is you don't really have an answer, just trash talk.

Free neutrons are produced in nuclear fission and fusion

Do you guys know that there is only one place on Earth that u-235 was ever fissile on it's own and that was 2 billion years ago and only lasted and ran for a few 100,000 years? Aside from that, there is no evidence of U235 ever doing that on it's on without being induced

in·duce (n-ds, -dys)
tr.v. in·duced, in·duc·ing, in·duc·es
1. To lead or move, as to a course of action, by influence or persuasion. See Synonyms at persuade.

2. To bring about or stimulate the occurrence of; cause: a drug used to induce labor.

3. To infer by inductive reasoning.

4. Physics
a. To produce (an electric current or a magnetic charge) by induction.

b. To produce (radioactivity, for example) artificially by bombardment of a substance with neutrons, gamma rays, and other particles.

5. Biochemistry To initiate or increase the production of (an enzyme or other protein) at the level of genetic transcription.

6. Genetics To cause an increase in the transcription of the RNA of (a gene

Read between the lines then maybe you'll understand the overwhelming push to ban all atmospheric testing.

flip wrote:

Though traces of neptunium have subsequently been found in nature, where it is not primeval but produced by neutron-induced transmutation reactions in uranium ores

Which is not a form of decay, which is a natural process. All those free neutrons came from somewhere and you will not find anywhere that says neutron-induced transmutation is not an artificial process, because well, it's an artificial process. I'm bored with you guys, because the fact is you don't really have an answer, just trash talk.

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

Neutron emission is a type of radioactive decay of atoms containing excess neutrons, in which a neutron is simply ejected from the nucleus. Two examples of isotopes which emit neutrons are beryllium-13 (mean life 2.7x10-21 sec) and helium-5 (7x10-22 sec).

I never said that neutron emission wasn't a form of decay, I asked how you facilitate the capture? The decay chain is not what's in question here, it's the transmutation that is.

For naturally occurring thorium, uranium-235, and uranium-238, spontaneous fission does occur rarely, but in the vast majority of the radioactive decay of these atoms, alpha decay or beta decay occurs instead. Hence, the spontaneous fission of these isotopes is usually negligible, except in using the exact branching ratios when finding the radioactivity of a sample of these elements.

Mathematically, the criterion for whether spontaneous fission can occur in a time short enough to be observed by present methods, is approximately:
\hbox{Z}^2/\hbox{A}\ge47.[1]
where Z is the atomic number and A is the mass number (e.g., 235 for U-235).

As the name suggests, spontaneous fission gives much the same result as induced nuclear fission. However, like other forms of radioactive decay, it occurs due to quantum tunneling, without the atom having been struck by a neutron or other particle as in induced nuclear fission. Spontaneous fissions release neutrons as all fissions do, so if a critical mass is present, a spontaneous fission can initiate a self-sustaining chain reaction.

Now, spontaneous fission is a possibility, although it is very rare, but it still does not explain the capture process which is done by slowly bombarding the element until the capture. Even then, every source that exists about Neptunium plainly states that the capture is done by neutron-induced transmutation and NOT through spontaneous fission, which is very rare. Only one occurrence ever noted on the Earth and that being almost 2 billion years ago. The evidence being the scarcity of U235 in that one particular deposit. Should also be noted that Neptunium was not even found there for that 150 years, which is where the most abundance of it should have been found.

If something can decay and emit a free neutron, then that neutron can then collide with something else and cause a transmutation. Naturally.

What ever gave you the idea that neutron bombardment doesn't happen naturally or outside a reactor?

If you can have free neutrons in nature, then you can have neutron bombardment, neutron capture and nuclear transmutation too, its really really simple.

See my edit:

Natural, or spontaneous, transmutation occurs in unstable, radioactive elements, which decay into a series of other elements until a stable element is formed. Thus, uranium 238 spontaneously transmutes, through a series of steps, into lead 206, which is stable. For information on the types of spontaneous transmutation,

Artificial, or induced, transmutation occurs when atoms of one element are bombarded with particles in a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator and are altered. All of the transuranium elements (elements with atomic numbers greater than 92, such as plutonium and americium) are man-made through induced transmutation. Most nuclear reactions involve artificially transmuting elements, although such reactions are usually referred to by terms denoting the specific nature of the process (fission, fusion, irradiation) or the desired end-product (radioisotope production) rather than by the blanket term transmutation.

If you will notice the distinction. Natural, or spontaneous transmutation results in an element gaining stability and become lighter.
Artificial, or induced transmutation results in a heavier and more unstable element.

Rare does not equal non-existent, for the millionth time.

That is still besides the point, for the millionth time. That is not the process by which Neptunium is being described.

um.. OK, I've tried reading through the 4 pages of stuff here. My brain hurts now.

Flip, can you please sum up what it is you're trying to say or convey? (sincere request)

Thanks.

*ow* *ow* *ow*.....

As far as Neptunium goes, I think it was produced by atmospheric nuclear testing. I don't think it was found for those 150 years because it wasn't there. I think the splitting of the atom released free neutrons with enough velocity to be induced into uranium deposits in the Earth, recreating Neptunium in nature that had long since decayed and ceased to exist. As far as energy playing a part in equilibrium, I have no idea yet.

Of the elements with atomic numbers 1 to 92, all can be found in nature, having stable (such as hydrogen), or very long half-life (such as uranium) isotopes, or are created as common products of the decay of uranium and thorium (such as radon).

All of the elements with higher atomic numbers, however, have been first discovered in the laboratory, with neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, berkelium and californium later also discovered in nature. They are all radioactive, with a half-life much shorter than the age of the Earth, so any atoms of these elements, if they ever were present at the Earth's formation, have long since decayed. Trace amounts of these six elements form in some uranium-rich rock, and small amounts are produced during atmospheric tests of atomic weapons. The Np, Pu, Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf generated are from neutron capture in uranium ore with subsequent beta decays (e.g. 238U + n → 239U → 239Np → 239Pu).

The search for element 93 in minerals was encumbered by the fact that the predictions on the chemical properties of element 93 were based on a periodic table which lacked the actinide series, and therefore placed thorium below hafnium, protactinium below tantalum, and uranium below tungsten. This periodic table suggested that element 93, at that point often named eka-rhenium, should be similar to manganese or rhenium. With this misconception it was impossible to isolate element 93 from minerals, although neptunium was later found in uranium ore, in 1952.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01143a074

As for the idea that the neutrons necessary for Np creation stem from nuclear tests:

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds); therefore the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) = 0.693) is 611.0±1.0 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds). Free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino to become a proton, a process known as beta decay.

More likely that the initial neutrons stem from spontaneous fission.



And some food for thought.

Because of the constraints in forming the daughter fission-product nuclei, spontaneous fission into known nuclides becomes theoretically possible (that is, energetically possible) for some atomic nuclei with atomic masses greater than 92 amu, with the probability of spontaneous fission increasing as the atomic mass number increases above this value.

The lightest natural nuclides that are hypothetically subject to spontaneous fission are niobium-93 and molybdenum-94 (elements #41 and #42, respectively). Spontaneous fission has never been observed in the naturally occurring isotopes of these elements, however. In practice, these are stable isotopes.

As the name suggests, spontaneous fission gives much the same result as induced nuclear fission. However, like other forms of radioactive decay, it occurs due to quantum tunneling, without the atom having been struck by a neutron or other particle as in induced nuclear fission.

A natural nuclear fission reactor is a uranium deposit where self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions have occurred. This can be examined by analysis of isotope ratios. The existence of this phenomenon was discovered in 1972 at Oklo in Gabon, Africa, by French physicist Francis Perrin. The conditions under which a natural nuclear reactor could exist had been predicted in 1956 by Paul Kazuo Kuroda.[1] The conditions found were very similar to what was predicted.

Oklo is the only known location for this in the world and consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions took place approximately 1.7 billion years ago, and ran for a few hundred thousand years, averaging 100 kW of power output during that time

This has got me real curious, because although spontaneous fission is theoretically possible, the only known occurrence of it ever happening is at Oklo in Africa. There had to be some kind of massive event to jump start such a chain reaction, but up to this point I have yet to find one that correlates. It does even further demonstrate the dangers of setting off long-lived nuclear reactions though, looks like maybe we dodged a bullet, so far

Of the actinides, primordial thorium and uranium occur naturally in substantial quantities and small amounts of persisting natural plutonium have also been identified. The radioactive decay of uranium produces transient amounts of actinium and protactinium, and atoms of neptunium, americium, curium, berkelium and californium are occasionally produced from transmutation reactions in uranium ores. The other actinides are purely synthetic elements.[2][6] Nuclear weapons tests have released at least six actinides heavier than plutonium into the environment; analysis of debris from a 1952 hydrogen bomb explosion showed the presence of americium, curium, berkelium, californium, einsteinium and fermium

As the name suggests, spontaneous fission gives much the same result as induced nuclear fission. However, like other forms of radioactive decay, it occurs due to quantum tunneling, without the atom having been struck by a neutron or other particle as in induced nuclear fission.

The only problem I have with an explanation of spontaneous fission, is that all research is saying the Neptunium in nature was a result of the atom having been struck, and not by the natural process of quantum tunneling. Aside from that, it should be obvious that Nuclear testing basically took us back in time by re-activating the Earth from a stable one to a more radioactive environment. I hope I find some event that correlates with the site Oklo, because whatever happened to set that in motion must have been huge.

EDIT: NM, seems to be a sufficient explanation already.

You are confusing spontaneous fission (a form of radioactive decay that is found in very heavy chemical elements) with a natural nuclear fission reactor (a uranium deposit where self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions have occurred.)

I understand the difference between the quantum tunneling process and neutron induced, but yeah, the Oklo site does confuse me. Nuclear fission is either a decay process or a nuclear reaction, so I was wondering exactly what sparked the reaction in the first place. It's more of a side-issue than anything, but interesting as hell.

Fission as encountered in the modern world is usually a deliberately produced man-made nuclear reaction induced by a neutron. It is less commonly encountered as a natural form of spontaneous radioactive decay (not requiring a neutron),

I was just wondering which was the cause of in the case of Oklo, induced or tunneling?

Here are some answers: http://oklo.curtin.edu.au/what.cfm

Yeah, it's beginning to make more sense. Basically, the concentrations of U235 were much higher 2 billion years ago than they are today. So, along with ideal groundwater conditions and the fact that U-235 is soluble and then depositing it in greater concentrations than anywhere else, along with free oxygen now being available, gave that one site the ideal conditions to naturally fission and then sustain that reaction. Since through decay, the concentrations of U235 are so much lower now than then, that kind of reaction is impossible now, which is most likely what led to them making the conclusion that the Neptunium we find in nature now must have been produced by an induced neutron.

EDIT: Not near as exciting as a Gamma Ray, which is what I was hoping

flip wrote:EDIT: Not near as exciting as a Gamma Ray, which is what I was hoping

...and thus you now understand the beauty of science -- unexpected answers. You should be excited that you were wrong and learned something new. There are countless things you can learn based on empirical evidence, all of them more real, practical, and interesting than "aliens did it" or "god did it" or any number of fantastic reasons.

Your kidding right? You don't even recognize a joke when you see one.

From you? Hard to tell because you say some pretty strange stuff.

Hehe, strange is exactly what this world is. The fact of the matter that you don't know the difference between neutron-induced and quantum tunneling shows that you had no interest in being anything but argumentative. You think it's strange that Nuclear testing produced high energy particles? You think it's strange that wave energy of all types could have an impact on form and structure? I bet you don't think it strange that such a vast Universe could have exploded from a singularity. It's all friggin strange man. Truth is stranger than fiction. Here's where I think your problem lies. You weren't given the opportunity to think things through for yourself. You were given all the answers, so it left no room for speculation. I still get this sneaking suspicion that you don't fully comprehend the implications of neutron-induced Neptunium, but it's likely due to your conditioning. You don't see the wonderful strangeness of things. You only know the answer to multiple choice questions. This has severely limited your abilities.

Oh wow. And just when I thought you were coming back to reality you "flip" out.

Ok, I'm out of this thread. He's hopeless.

Bye.