Backward, turn backward, O Time in your Flight

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:02:07 -0700, Anka wrote:

Have I ever asked you for coins? Refresh my memory.

Gotcha.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:14:05 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Among the really "old" numismatic facts: The one numismatic metal
*not* made in supernovae explosions is aluminum. The rest, gold,
silver, copper, tin, zinc, nickel, and so on, were all formed before
the birth of Sun and Earth through "explosive nucleosynthesis" thought
to last only seconds when stars larger than about eight times the mass
of the Sun exploded at the end of their life, shining more brightly
for a few weeks than the 100 billion or so other stars in their
galaxies combined.

Here's a switch, a substantive response in this thread. It's a
correction actually to what I wrote earlier. It turns out that only
about half of the gold, silver, copper, and so on in our coins was
formed before the Solar System was born in supernovae, the explosions
of massive stars at the end of their lives. The rest was formed before
the Solar System was born within stars during ordinary stellar
evolution through the "s-process." This according to the latest
thinking according to a physicist who has graced me with his views
privately.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:14:05 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Among the really "old" numismatic facts: The one numismatic metal
*not* made in supernovae explosions is aluminum. The rest, gold,
silver, copper, tin, zinc, nickel, and so on, were all formed before
the birth of Sun and Earth through "explosive nucleosynthesis" thought
to last only seconds when stars larger than about eight times the mass
of the Sun exploded at the end of their life, shining more brightly
for a few weeks than the 100 billion or so other stars in their
galaxies combined.

Here's a switch, a substantive response in this thread. It's a
correction actually to what I wrote earlier. It turns out that only
about half of the gold, silver, copper, and so on in our coins was
formed before the Solar System was born in supernovae, the explosions
of massive stars at the end of their lives. The rest was formed before
the Solar System was born within stars during ordinary stellar
evolution through the "s-process." This according to the latest
thinking according to a physicist who has graced me with his views
privately.

....his "views," or did he cite peer-reviewed, verifiable research? Please
elaborate, if the latter.

James

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 21:46:15 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"
lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:

...his "views," or did he cite peer-reviewed, verifiable research? Please
elaborate, if the latter.

No, he didn't use the conventions of an academic, peer-reviewed paper
in his email to me, with references, footnotes, and so on. I don't
believe I've ever gotten an email like this. But if you look around
the Web, you'll find material about stellar evolution,
nucleosynthesis, supernovae, the s-process, the r-process, and so on.

Your point is well taken, though, if the point you're trying to make
is that the reliability of information can vary widely. Some of the
material you find on the Web and elsewhere online is incorrect,
including some of the material I've found about this. But the bulk of
what I've found so far supports what he said. I personally haven't
taken this yet to reading scientific papers in academic journals, but
I did read one book about this a while back, by a British
astrophysicist, a library book whose title I'm not remembering right
now.

What we know or think we know about element formation is based on
models, or theories, given that much of this happened before the birth
of the Solar System, with some of these models subject to debate among
those most expert in the subject area. I don't know how much
laboratory research if any is behind this or whether it's based solely
computer modeling. But, as far as I can tell thus far, here's what's
most commonly accepted by those closest to this:

* All of the hydrogen and most of the helium existing today were
formed through the Big Bang, though it took some time for the
electron-less plasma of hydrogen and helium nuclei to attract
electrons. A small percentage of the lithium existing today was
produced through the Big Bang as well.

* Most of the carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen in the Universe, key to
life on Earth, were formed within stars before the birth of our Solar
System through nuclear fusion and fission during their evolution.

* About half of the gold, silver, copper, and other elements heavier
than iron in the Universe were created before the birth of the Solar
System from the explosion of massive stars at the end of their life,
called a supernova. This is called the r-process. The other half of
these heavy metals came from ordinary stellar evolution, deep within
the core of ordinary stars where densities are highest, in what's
called the s-process.

* Only elements heavier than lead, the radioactive elements such as
radon and uranium, are produced only in supernovae. Elements lighter
than iron are also produced in supernova explosions.

* Elements heavier than the hydrogen, helium, and lithium created
through the Big Bang are seeded to the Universe in several ways:
through stellar wind throughout their lives, when stars eject their
outer layers in the process of becoming red giants at the end of their
lives, in the case of massive stars though supernova explosions at the
end of their lives, and in their remains after they die.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Jun 10, 3:46 am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message

...



On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:14:05 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Among the really "old" numismatic facts: The one numismatic metal
*not* made in supernovae explosions is aluminum. The rest, gold,
silver, copper, tin, zinc, nickel, and so on, were all formed before
the birth of Sun and Earth through "explosive nucleosynthesis" thought
to last only seconds when stars larger than about eight times the mass
of the Sun exploded at the end of their life, shining more brightly
for a few weeks than the 100 billion or so other stars in their
galaxies combined.

Here's a switch, a substantive response in this thread. It's a
correction actually to what I wrote earlier. It turns out that only
about half of the gold, silver, copper, and so on in our coins was
formed before the Solar System was born in supernovae, the explosions
of massive stars at the end of their lives. The rest was formed before
the Solar System was born within stars during ordinary stellar
evolution through the "s-process." This according to the latest
thinking according to a physicist who has graced me with his views
privately.

...his "views," or did he cite peer-reviewed, verifiable research? Please
elaborate, if the latter.

James

Some people have trouble distinguishing private from public and facts
from opinions

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Moneta-L/message/84183

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:14:55 -0700, Jorg Lueke
wrote:

Some people have trouble distinguishing private from public and facts
from opinions

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Moneta-L/message/84183

What does this mean? I received several long (private) emails from
Carl, which unlike this junk from you was useful. And much of this is
opinion, as I said, given that even experts disagree in some ways on
the models for element creation.

At least your not using the sockpuppet of my name to harass me with
this junk. Oh, that's right. You were just doing "satire" when you did
that over a period of a month before being outed. It was art. That's
the ticket.

Hey, how about adding something substantive to this discussion instead
of this idiocy? What can you add to the discussion about how the gold,
silver, copper, tin and so on, the stuff of our coins, came about?
It's hard, I know. Easier to do what you're doing.

Talking about elements, let us know how your business of providing
elemental analysis of coins is going. Talking about jokes.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

I remembered the title of that book I had read: Stardust: Supernovae
and Life -- The Cosmic Connection by John Gribbin, copyright 2000. I
don't know that I'd recommend it. I was fun reading, but it's not the
most lucid book I've every read. He's an astrophysicist with a PhD
from the University of Cambridge, best known for his 1984 book about
quantum physics titled In Search of Schrödinger's Cat, but he also
earlier predicted (and then repudiated) that the planets would align
in 1982, setting off an earthquake and destroying Los Angeles (the
Jupiter Effect).

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On Jun 10, 12:29?pm, Reid Goldsborough
responds to Jorge in part:

Hey, how about adding something substantive to this discussion instead
of this idiocy? What can you add to the discussion about how the gold,
silver, copper, tin and so on, the stuff of our coins, came about?
It's hard, I know. Easier to do what you're doing.

Isn't there usually more than one person involved in a discussion?

Are Fordler, Windsor, Smith, Berman, CoinCollector, et al going to
show up?

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...

I remembered the title of that book I had read: Stardust: Supernovae
and Life -- The Cosmic Connection by John Gribbin, copyright 2000. I
don't know that I'd recommend it...

Not enough pictures?

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:54:59 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

Not enough pictures?

No pictures, as I recall. As with most nonfiction books, this one
could have used pictures, graphs, charts, and other visuals. It would
have been a much better book with them, as it would have been much
better with an introduction and conclusion for each chapter, or at
least an abstract summarizing the author's conclusions. As with
visuals, that also is not dumbing down, and to think it is as you seem
to, well, that's dumbing down.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos