Is earths polar regiones radioactive?

Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:

Protons are created from the decay of free neutrons and if it captures
an electron, it becomes a new hydrogen atom.

Hydrogen atoms were created in the big bang. Have you got some other
source of hydrogen?

Since decaying neutrons are one of the sources of hydrogen made since
the big bang you've gone well into troll territory. All because you
don't appear to understand the word "none". Sigh. One more author into
the filter.

wrote:

You might make a case that all the quarks were created by the Big Bang
and none since, but that is not what you originally said.

It was my impression that when a high engery gamma ray photon hits a
particle there's a chance the photon will decay into a spray of
particles that include quarks. That would be a balanced set of matter
and anti-matter quarks but the prevalence of matter over anti-matter in
the universe says there must be some sorting mechanism that leads to
some matter remaining in some cases.

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/11/12 12:15 AM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:
On 4/10/12 9:46 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:


You know jimp, all the hydrogen and most of the helium was created
in the fist three minutes, but there was no neutral hydrogen or helium
for several hundred thousand years, as the universe was too hot!

Incorrect; the majority of the hydrogen and most of the helium was created
in the first three minutes, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Hydrogen atoms were created in the big bang. Have you got some other
source of hydrogen?

Free neutron decay.

And the neutron was most likely produces by a *proton* turning
into a neutron via mechanisms like like the p-p chain. You
*fail* to convince me that our universe is producing protons
other that the big bang.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...r17/17f02.html

Again links that have nothing to do with the discussion.

You are the master of useless and meaningless links.

Free neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and and electron
antineutrino.

Free neutrons have a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes.

A proton has a mean lifetime of somewhere around 10^30 years, a bit
longer than the age of the universe.

Once a free neutron has decayed, and it will, the resultant proton is
stable absent other input.

Some physics education you have there.




You miss the point, jimp. The BB created H and He... any free neutrons
came from those sources*.

Umm, no.

You could make a case for all neutrons having come from the Big Bang,
but they were neutrons at that time and not protons and you didn't do
that.

You could make a case for all matter having come from the Big Bang,
if you ignore mass-energy equivalence and modern research, but you
didn't do that either.

If you generate free neutrons today you will in turn generate some
protons which didn't exist before. If those protons capture an electron,
and statistically some of them will, you have a brand new hydrogen atom
that didn't exist before.

Is there something you
don't like about my syllabus stating that "all the hydrogen atoms in
your body (after all you are more than 90% water are 13.7 billion
years old! Every atom of hydrogen was created by the Big Bang".

Of course; it is the imprecise, half truth language of a newspaper, not
the language of a scientist that you claim to be.

Moreover it goes to show how muddy your thinking is.

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/11/12 12:20 AM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:
On 4/10/12 7:36 PM, wrote:


Nice try, still missed the point, but a hydrogen nuclei is not a
hydrogen atom.

Jimp, you might want to do a bit of self education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Hydrogen_ion

Now you are trying to change the subject from the creation of protons to
what is the definition of a hydrogen atom.

Most people would say a hydrogen atom is a proton with an attached electron
and that absent the electron it is either a free proton or a hydrogen
ion, depending on whether the subject is particles or chemistry.

But of course, all that is irrelevant to whether or not any hydrogen has
been produced since the Big Bang.

Grasping at straws, are we?



Perhaps you'll "get it" if I ask you how old the hydrogen is in your
body, jimp?

The vast majority, but statisically not all, are about 13 billion years old.

Can you identify *any* protons or hydrogen atoms that are not at least
13.7 billion years old?

Sure, you fund a trip to someplace producing free neutrons and I'll point
out the new protons being produced to you.

On 4/11/12 1:24 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:
On 4/11/12 12:15 AM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:
On 4/10/12 9:46 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:


You know jimp, all the hydrogen and most of the helium was created
in the fist three minutes, but there was no neutral hydrogen or helium
for several hundred thousand years, as the universe was too hot!

Incorrect; the majority of the hydrogen and most of the helium was created
in the first three minutes, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Hydrogen atoms were created in the big bang. Have you got some other
source of hydrogen?

Free neutron decay.

And the neutron was most likely produces by a *proton* turning
into a neutron via mechanisms like like the p-p chain. You
*fail* to convince me that our universe is producing protons
other that the big bang.

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...r17/17f02.html

Again links that have nothing to do with the discussion.

You are the master of useless and meaningless links.

Free neutrons decay into a proton, an electron, and and electron
antineutrino.

Free neutrons have a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes.

A proton has a mean lifetime of somewhere around 10^30 years, a bit
longer than the age of the universe.

Once a free neutron has decayed, and it will, the resultant proton is
stable absent other input.

Some physics education you have there.




You miss the point, jimp. The BB created H and He... any free neutrons
came from those sources*.

Umm, no.

You could make a case for all neutrons having come from the Big Bang,
but they were neutrons at that time and not protons and you didn't do
that.

You could make a case for all matter having come from the Big Bang,
if you ignore mass-energy equivalence and modern research, but you
didn't do that either.

If you generate free neutrons today you will in turn generate some
protons which didn't exist before. If those protons capture an electron,
and statistically some of them will, you have a brand new hydrogen atom
that didn't exist before.

Is there something you
don't like about my syllabus stating that "all the hydrogen atoms in
your body (after all you are more than 90% water are 13.7 billion
years old! Every atom of hydrogen was created by the Big Bang".

Of course; it is the imprecise, half truth language of a newspaper, not
the language of a scientist that you claim to be.

Moreover it goes to show how muddy your thinking is.


How should I reword it? Thanks.

On 4/11/12 1:24 PM, the wrote:


Of course; it is the imprecise, half truth language of a newspaper, not
the language of a scientist that you claim to be.


Here's a updated version, which I am assuming will meet your standards
of precision from a scientist:

Almost all of hydrogen atoms in your body (after all you are about 90%
water) are 13.7 billion years old! Hydrogen was created by the Big Bang.
Carbon, the basis of organic life, the Iron in your blood, Iodine and
heavier elements necessary for life, were forged in the fiery cores of
stars and supernovae explosions eons ago and then swept up from
interstellar space 4.56 billion years ago when the solar system formed.
This course will help you connect with the Universe, of which you are,
indeed, an integral part!

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/11/12 1:24 PM, wrote:

Of course; it is the imprecise, half truth language of a newspaper, not
the language of a scientist that you claim to be.

Moreover it goes to show how muddy your thinking is.


How should I reword it? Thanks.

By using the precise language of a scientist as you claim to be.

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/11/12 1:24 PM, the wrote:


Of course; it is the imprecise, half truth language of a newspaper, not
the language of a scientist that you claim to be.


Here's a updated version, which I am assuming will meet your standards
of precision from a scientist:

Almost all of hydrogen atoms in your body (after all you are about 90%
water) are 13.7 billion years old! Hydrogen was created by the Big Bang.
Carbon, the basis of organic life, the Iron in your blood, Iodine and
heavier elements necessary for life, were forged in the fiery cores of
stars and supernovae explosions eons ago and then swept up from
interstellar space 4.56 billion years ago when the solar system formed.
This course will help you connect with the Universe, of which you are,
indeed, an integral part!

Good enough I guess for a JC overview course; at least it isn't wrong
in what it says.

On 4/11/12 3:08 PM, wrote:
In sci.physics Sam wrote:
On 4/11/12 1:24 PM, the wrote:


Of course; it is the imprecise, half truth language of a newspaper, not
the language of a scientist that you claim to be.


Here's a updated version, which I am assuming will meet your standards
of precision from a scientist:

Almost all of hydrogen atoms in your body (after all you are about 90%
water) are 13.7 billion years old! Hydrogen was created by the Big Bang.
Carbon, the basis of organic life, the Iron in your blood, Iodine and
heavier elements necessary for life, were forged in the fiery cores of
stars and supernovae explosions eons ago and then swept up from
interstellar space 4.56 billion years ago when the solar system formed.
This course will help you connect with the Universe, of which you are,
indeed, an integral part!

Good enough I guess for a JC overview course; at least it isn't wrong
in what it says.


I removed the "of" in the first sentence. Thanks for your concerns and
suggestions, jimp.


QUALITY STANDARD: This course is taught to a standard meeting and
exceeding that required to transfer credit to the Regents Universities
of Iowa and other colleges and universities.

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:

I removed the "of" in the first sentence. Thanks for your concerns and
suggestions, jimp.

Yeah, you "removed the "of" in the first sentence", as well as a bunch
of other things.

You can't even form a correct statement of what it was you changed without
half truths.

Too bad there is no web site with something peripherally related you
could have pasted in as a response.