What is Digg?95 Comments
- Gojirra, on 05/18/2008, -3/+44Korean Gold Farmers.
- chrgrose, on 05/18/2008, -3/+32First of all, our solar system is formed of 3rd generation material. The concentration of an element locally and on higher scales is obviously related to the processes responsible for its redistribuion and thus may be as much related to our ability to measure these abundances throughout the system as it is related to those particular processes.
Anyways, I'm more of a geochemist than a cosmochemist (I deal with planets rather than solar systems, circumstellar discs, and interstellar media) so I'm not that informed regarding the state of research in nucleosynthesis and processes related to interstellar partitioning and such. Meh. - inactive, on 05/18/2008, -3/+24Ron Burgundy: Brick, where did you get a hand grenade?
Brick Tamland: I don't know. - elnerdo, on 05/18/2008, -0/+19Every element in existence was originally hydrogen. Stars fuse hydrogen to create elements further along the periodic table. From what I understand, every element past iron needed to have been created in a supernova, because stars can't fuse iron anymore (When a star is entirely iron, it is a white dwarf, and it no longer fuses). This means that all of the elements above hydrogen should be very rare, but gold isn't as rare as it should be. That's why it's special.
- Exbzurq, on 05/18/2008, -1/+19Where we're going, we don't need roads.
- mazza558, on 05/18/2008, -3/+18I heard that in Spain, they don't even have roads!
- JAFFA, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10Amazing. I love our universe. Every time I learn stuff like this I attempt to REALLY comprehend what im reading and it STAGGERS me. Every... Single ... Time.
- chrgrose, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9Gold is a chemical element, not a mineral.
- Zippo, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9Our star is likely from a 2nd or 3rd generation... the sun and our planets formed from the death of a previous star. That would explain the heavier elements.
- inactive, on 05/18/2008, -4/+10Methane, Hydrogen,Carbon and even Crude Oil are products of planetary evelution. Not from dinosaurs and old plants like Exxon oil co.told you
- whahaa, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6me neither, but i love that we can see that stat now!
- MattNF, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6What.
- Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4And odd thing happens, and doesn't conform to present scientific theory.
Scientist: Hm. That's funny. *research* *research* *research* Aha! It looks like it's because of [new and innovative hypothesis]. *test* *test* *write* *write* *publish* *revise* *write* *write* *publish* *etc* Well, after all that, it looks like I've founded a new theory, and it looks like it supersedes old theory, and we can now predict [odd thing] as well as [ancilliary things which would have been odd, but are now understood]! Go Science!
Theist: Um... Magic man done it? - inactive, on 05/19/2008, -3/+7If you have a better theory, why don't you enlighten us all?
- JAFFA, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4How weird - So did I
- nonpareil, on 05/18/2008, -2/+6Only the leprechauns can know for sure.
- Chebsi, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Same.
- Qeveren, on 05/19/2008, -4/+7"Supernatural" is an oxymoron, really. If something exists in this universe, it's natural.
- maelnum, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Gold is valued because of both its rarity and its inertness. Iron, copper, silver might be more useful but they also oxidize. So, through the generations, other metals deteriorate but gold stays. This, in my humble opinion, is why gold is standard of value that has been around since the ancient Egyptians.
- TheCatsPants, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3You think the Big Bang theory is pseudo-science? Wow. You have any idea how many predictions made from the BB theory have been borne out? Try wikipedia.
""fitting the evidence into the framework"=faith"
I'm sorry, but the Big Bang overthrew the Steady State theory which was the theory-de-jour back in the thirties. In fact the term "big bang" was derisory. It wasn't shoe-horned into the framework, and the discovery of the microwave background in the sixties was pretty much confirmation that the theory was, if not perfect, closer to the truth than the steady state theory. If people want to believe in a supernatural influence, fine, just don't include it as science as you cannot test it or make predictions from it. Or do you think we should start including astrology in astronomy degree courses. - Diderotten, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3you know radar spelled backwards is radar.
- TheCatsPants, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3The Big Bang theory is testable.....the microwave background. The maps of the microwave background. Measuring the red-shift of quasars and galaxies shows the universe is expanding. What caused the Big Bang is up for grabs as yet, but the basic facts are already established. If you want to believe God started it, fine. Are you claiming that the universe didn't used to be small, hot and dense, and that it isn't expanding. Or is it a particular aspect of the theory you disagree with?
- Lewie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3You sound smart; please reproduce more.
- Scynet, on 05/18/2008, -3/+6Where did it get on the ground? The Earth isn't eternal, and wasn't formed during the big bang. Like all planets, Earth formed from the dust created in a star explosion. ALL matter is created in stars, not just gold, but heavy elements like gold aren't created in stars as small as our sun - they are made in much more insane explosion of more massive stars.
- chkdg8, on 05/18/2008, -5/+8Hurry before scientologists claim it's from XENU.
- riskybeats, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Ugggghhh, the way you guys warp the idea of 'faith in science' around boggles my mind.
"Fitting the evidence into a framework=faith. You are right.
'I just don't demand a naturalistic answer to fit some preconceived notion about the universe.' So that preconceived notion is what the bible says, or what science says? If you mean science, then it's not preconceived, it was built up over evidence they found, and can be destroyed at anytime to let a better model/theory take over that explains more... which leads me to "fitting the evidence into the framework=faith". You are right, but don't confuse that with science. If the evidence doesn't fit into the current model, then that means they have to change the framework. And 'types who prefer to throw their blind faith into a theory first...then fit existence into theory'.. I hope you are talking about dogmatic religion go'ers, because that is not how science works.
The second you say that you don't need a naturalistic causation to coincide with the evidence.. then damn, you can pretty much use any explanation you want! I prefer the idea that the universe started when I ate a cinnamon bun this morning and farted. - inactive, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Hey dumbass (stonewaljacksn), you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm not demanding some explanation from JimmySpaza. I couldn't care less what his theory is. I'm just saying that instead of whining every time the topic of the Big Bang Theory (or just about any other theory) comes up, please propose something better and put it out for peer review.
- inactive, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6Forget bling. More like bang!
- ShrimpCrackers, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2God put in dinosaur bones next to the gold to test our faith!
/sarcasm, although there are people out there that really do say dinosaur bones were placed by god to test their faith. - stonewaljacksn, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5shhh. dont question blind faith whether it be in science or religion.
- y2kbg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2no, correct me if i am wrong, but that would be alchemy, or realistically nuclear change. the only way to form an new element by a nuclear process, suck as an A-bomb, H-bomb, fission reactors, star collsion, and natural radioactive decay.
- Doitdifferently, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Ditto.
Really made the whole thing very interesting yet confusing at first. - nullcodes, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6We have more gold than other places? Then why haven't aliens come to steal it ?
Maybe it's because gold is one of the more useless metals (yes I know it can be use for certain few things in electronics etc.) - TheCatsPants, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3No. Blackbob just wanted JimmySpaza to come up with some evidence to back his claims that the Big Bang theory was wrong. It appears that the universe used to be (a long time ago) hot, dense and small, and that it expanded to its current size. So if you feel like it you can interpret this as 1/ a natural origin, 2/ God made the Big Bang happen a long time ago, 3/ God created it all last week, or 6000 years ago, or 6 minutes ago, and made everything look like it is old and expanding, 4/ We can't know anything because the universe is just a dream in God's head. All a scientist asks is for some objective evidence. Some people don't need evidence to come to their own conclusions.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2DeBeers deals in diamonds... and we actually know where diamonds come from and how they formed.
- DarkDx, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6I can't ***** believe somebody buried your comment.
- Doitdifferently, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I'm going with the "space dragons put it there to hoard it" theory because I have no idea and space dragons sound pretty spiffy.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2You know, God spelled backwards is Dog. And Dog is Man's best friend? Coincidence?
In Chinese, God means Upper Diety which also sounds like getting on the ground. Coincidence?
Seriously, my friend went to this giant sermon with thousands at a stadium somewhere in New York, and this pastor was pointing to this nebula that looked like a cross. He said it was signs that god was trying to speak to us and everywhere. Problem is that mass looks like a cross from where WE are, but in actuality was the shape of a random blob in 3d. Not that he or other fanatics looking for any sign cared. They just saw what they wanted. - Doitdifferently, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Which is why lead cannot be turned into gold.
Alchemy gave so much to science even if alchemists never achieved their goal. - Doitdifferently, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I'm going to guess someone forgot to take their meds this morning.
- Doitdifferently, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I pity the fool who don't know he put it there.
- elnerdo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Eep, I made a big error. I meant to say: This means that all of the elements above IRON should be very rare.
- Lewie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes, and we call those people "crazy".
- novenator, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I thought gold formation was aided by microbial activity. In fact, was there not an article on Digg about this less than a month ago? someone help an old timer with alzheimers, will ya?
- Doitdifferently, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You don't understand! It's shiney!
- whalt, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul. That's why he wants to base our money on it so he can rule the world.
- ViktorVaughn, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Uhm.., no kidding...
- Doitdifferently, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Wow. What books do you read? Because I think I need to expand my collection.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is