star dust

Originally posted by reinfeld
the periodic table shows clearly that the human condition can clearly be asceribed to the elements thrown out by dying stars.

there is no conflict between science and religion if you percieve the Great Architect as possible of all things ( a religious dogma that is always abandon in the face of a scientific ( mostly abusive ) reply.

...of course god ...[text shortened]... chemistry...

don't all of you get it ?

that which is the first cause is the first cause !

Well to be a bit more clear without looking this up, the more complex atoms can only be formed from simpler elements under conditions of enormous heat and pressure, which arise only within the cores of larger stars. The life of the universe is such that stars have both formed in space through the accumulation of particles drawn together by gravity and subsequently blown apart to form immense gas clouds a number of times in succession. It is a remarkable process and can be observed through astronomy as it continues to take place, not least because events happening thousands of years in the past but thousands of light years distant from us are now to be seen from Earth or near space.

The heavier atoms on which our chemistry depends could only have been formed within stars. This and many other aspects of scientific observation and discovery are a source of wonder and mystery which awes those prepared to consider them. Hence it seems to many highly poetical to describe us as "star dust," but I do not see that this equates to the empty suggestion that we are "nothing but" stardust, or even nothing but dust. Even the aphorism much used at funerals - Dust we are and unto dust we will return - is a poetical and not a reductionist statement.

Poetry, like humour, does not survive for long when it is twisted into a basis for argument about beliefs, such as for example an absurd debate about humans being "nothing but" stardust. This observation applies not least to current idiotic belief systems which treat the books of the Bible as if they were something other than poetry.

There are many ways to read poetry and it can support many different interpretations or responses. You can "get it" or "not get it," but you cannot claim the only, one correct reading. It is not that kind of stuff.

Originally posted by katp
I can live happily on your comment about the "no accident".

Would just like to add, faith in God, does not change reality or make you stupid or put you in a box. It changes your attitude of how you experience reality and handle reality.

My late sister liked to say that God is a principle, or maybe she would have typed it as Principle. I like that, whether or not the belief is also that God exists. I think a person's view of God tells us a lot more about that person than about God. I hardly ever run into atheists who wish God exists, and I think that is a commentary on the popular depictions of God that is bought into even by atheists. I like the idea of God being cool enough to come up with the star dust route. I like the idea of a God that loves all creation. Just as the stars are used to bring us into the world, we are used to bring that love into the world. The principle that comes from that, is to live as though it is true. That will make it true.

Originally posted by JS357
My late sister liked to say that God is a principle, or maybe she would have typed it as Principle. I like that, whether or not the belief is also that God exists. I think a person's view of God tells us a lot more about that person than about God. I hardly ever run into atheists who wish God exists, and I think that is a commentary on the popular depictions o ...[text shortened]... d. The principle that comes from that, is to live as though it is true. That will make it true.

I like your late sister's outlook.

Faith in God, changes attitudes to handle reality, not reality. Because of your action, reality changes. It is an intersting thought, to me that we are ALL made of star dust in reality.

I think, faith in God, just help us how to handle our stardom.

I was asked: If it turns out there is no God, what was your faith worth?

If there is no God, what did I loose to live life with a loving attitude? At least I have tasted a lot of heaven already on earth.



🙂

Originally posted by RBHILL
But stars are made of fire.

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the star dust is not the actual star (and the stars are not fire in the way that we commonly understand it). The star dust is the molecular and particle clouds produced as hydrogen and helium from the star scatters in the surrounding space and cool down (usually when a star dies). When that happens, other elements are allowed to form, such as carbon. All life as we know it are carbon based.

We are indeed the product of stars, composed of their star dust as it were. Is there a god behind it all? Who knows?

Originally posted by Zenarctic
The star dust is the molecular and particle clouds produced as hydrogen and helium from the star scatters in the surrounding space and cool down (usually when a star dies). When that happens, other elements are allowed to form, such as carbon. All life as we know it are carbon based.

Actually my understanding is that stars are nuclear fusion reactors that create the heavier elements. These heavier elements are created in stars and not later as you say. Life as we know it contains a lot of carbon, but it is hardly the only element. Human beings for example are mostly water.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually my understanding is that stars are nuclear fusion reactors that create the heavier elements. These heavier elements are created in stars and not later as you say. Life as we know it contains a lot of carbon, but it is hardly the only element. Human beings for example are mostly water.

Yes. "About 67 elements have been detected in the solar spectrum. "

Details at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/suncomp.html

Note that the data exclude the solar core.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually my understanding is that stars are nuclear fusion reactors that create the heavier elements. These heavier elements are created in stars and not later as you say. Life as we know it contains a lot of carbon, but it is hardly the only element. Human beings for example are mostly water.

Carbon based by no means implies carbon exclusive. What it means is that carbon is required for any life form (as we know them) to exist. Most of life's DNA is made of carbon, for instance.

It's true that the stars are essentially fusion reactors, and they produce mostly hydrogen and helium. Of course, there are heavier elements involved, but they're usually a relative small amount until the star reaches its end (which can go on for quite some time). I believe that these heavier elements are not created in the star, but included in the formation of new stars from the molecular cloud in which these new stars take form. The molecular clouds being the remnants of earlier dead stars, and produced as the fusion reaction ends (or at the outer rim of the stars perhaps). In the core of any star (where the fusion takes place) I believe it's impossible for heavier elements to exist, but I'm uncertain of that, so the other elements (such as iron) exists closer to the surface and in the corona perhaps.

My physics is a little rusty, so don't hesitate to correct me, please. But this is what I remember from the top of my head. (Though memory is a volatile thing for sure.)

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Carbon based by no means implies carbon exclusive. What it means is that carbon is required for any life form (as we know them) to exist.

But so are Oxygen, Phosphorous, Hydrogen and a number of other atoms. I just thought I would point that out.

Most of life's DNA is made of carbon, for instance.
I am having difficulty confirming that claim. What percentage of atoms in DNA are Carbon? All the pictures I have found so far do not show the carbon (although it is there). I do see lots of phosphorous, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen.

It's true that the stars are essentially fusion reactors, and they produce mostly hydrogen and helium.
Actually, that is not true. Hydrogen is a fuel and not a product in stars.

Typically the process is as follows over time:
1. Ball of Hydrogen gas
2. Young star (such as the sun): Fusion of Hydrogen to Helium
3. Old star: Fusion of Helium into heavier elements up to Iron.
4. Supernova: Fusion of elements heavier than Iron.

I believe that these heavier elements are not created in the star, but included in the formation of new stars from the molecular cloud in which these new stars take form.
I believe you are mistaken.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But so are Oxygen, Phosphorous, Hydrogen and a number of other atoms. I just thought I would point that out.

[b]Most of life's DNA is made of carbon, for instance.
I am having difficulty confirming that claim. What percentage of atoms in DNA are Carbon? All the pictures I have found so far do not show the carbon (although it is there). I do see lo ...[text shortened]... from the molecular cloud in which these new stars take form. [/b]
I believe you are mistaken.[/b]

quote:

My question is this: If iron fusion seems to be the last step in stellar life, then where did we get all the heavier elements on earth? My understanding is that all of the elements on earth heavier than helium were produced in stellar furnaces. - Star ash.

All of the post-iron elements are formed in supernova explosions themselves. So much energy is released during a supernova explosion that the freed energy and copious free neutrons streaming from the collapsing core drive massive fusion reactions, long past the formation of iron. Sure, this absorbs a lot of energy, but there's plenty available once the explosion has begun.

unquote

reference: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=77

Originally posted by twhitehead
But so are Oxygen, Phosphorous, Hydrogen and a number of other atoms. I just thought I would point that out.

[b]Most of life's DNA is made of carbon, for instance.
I am having difficulty confirming that claim. What percentage of atoms in DNA are Carbon? All the pictures I have found so far do not show the carbon (although it is there). I do see lo from the molecular cloud in which these new stars take form. [/b]
I believe you are mistaken.[/b]

Wow, you're really taking this to the next level, aren't you? Good for me, since it turns out I've been talking out of my hat. I had to go look things up now.

What I found is that carbon is one of the most stable elements out there, meaning it easily form stable compounds with other elements, and it is the most common element to do so, which is why it's been considered the backbone of life. In the human body it turns out that carbon is second to oxygen only. Even wikipedia confirmed this. In DNA, the nucleotides are 5-carbon sugar compounds, so there's lots of carbon there all right, but is DNA mostly carbon? You got me there.

As for the star, I stand perfectly corrected. Indeed, hydrogen is fused into helium, so the star doesn't produce any hydrogen. My bad. There are apparently two variations on how heavier elements are created by a star, through stellar nucleosynthesis where heavier elements are created through the fusion process within the star (as you correctly pointed out), and supernova nucleosynthesis, where heavier elements are created as a star explodes and dies. I had only heard about the latter and made the poor assumption that this was the only way a star would produce these heavier elements.

However, I would still have to insist on the essence of my original comment. The stardust is not the star itself (though the star can produce these heavier elements). It is the molecular cloud (interstellar cloud) surrounding stars, or left behind after a star has exploded. This molecular cloud contains all the basic building blocks for planets and all the structures (including organic) we find on them, which is why we're made of stardust.

I thank you deeply for putting me straight, and don't hesitate to run me over again if you feel my comments need further debunking. Otherwise, it's been an absolute delight.

Originally posted by Zenarctic
What I found is that carbon is one of the most stable elements out there, meaning it easily form stable compounds with other elements, and it is the most common element to do so, which is why it's been considered the backbone of life.

I don't think it is stability that matters but rather its ability to form large molecules (in chains, sheets, etc which I believe is partly due to its valence. Silicon is also very common and can also form sheets and chains, but I believe has some key differences that stops it forming compounds equivalent to organic compounds.

I believe Carbon is considered the 'backbone' of life because it does, literally form the back bone of most organic compounds. That does not however mean it is the most abundant element in life nor that it is the only essential element.
I am sure that both hydrogen and oxygen are more abundant (though hydrogen might loose out on mass).

Originally posted by katp
A little from the point. I do apologize.

Perfect or correct...the difference?

I think we strive too much to be correct in life, instead of perfect.

Correct is not to make a mistake. I am not capable of being always correct.

Perfect, is to be in balance with your own dark and light side (our star dust blink?..maybe ). Because of the balance you can a ...[text shortened]...

Thank you that you find my previous post perfectly reasonable, and not only correct.


🙂

Well when we syart saying anyone's 100% correct, we start delving into muddy waters.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now that your interpretation is on the right track 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think it is stability that matters but rather its ability to form large molecules (in chains, sheets, etc which I believe is partly due to its valence. Silicon is also very common and can also form sheets and chains, but I believe has some key differences that stops it forming compounds equivalent to organic compounds.

I believe Carbon is consi ...[text shortened]... re that both hydrogen and oxygen are more abundant (though hydrogen might loose out on mass).

Hm, I'm learning a few things here. The stability of the carbon is not as I thought, dependant on its valence, but the number of protons and neutrons, right? It's valence allows it to bond with up to four other elements, which is why it is the most common element in compounds (common not as in abundant numbers, but in the different number of compounds it can be part of). Silicon, while equal in valence, is less reactive than carbon, which is why it doesn't form the same amount of different compounds.

An interesting note on the stardust is this quote from wikipedia:

"In order to be available for formation of life as we know it, this carbon must then later be scattered into space as dust, in supernova explosions, as part of the material which later forms second, third-generation star systems which have planets accreted from such dust. The Solar System is one such third-generation star system."

Not quite what I wrote earlier, but I'm starting to see now how my memory failed me.