This very interesting paper http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~srf/isotopes/li1.pdf is all about isotope ratios varying from region to region.
Sent from my iPhone. On Apr 30, 2011, at 15:56, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > From: Jed Rothwell > > > > > > Ø Anyone reviewing the astronomical data on isotopes, going back to the > 1940s, would know that is wrong. > > JB: You must have gone absolutely NUTS. You are so completely wrong that you > must have no understanding of this subject at all. What data? > > Ø JR: See the work of Townes and, for example, "Interstellar isotope ratios > from mm-wave molecular absorption spectra." These studies would not be > meaningful if isotopic ratios varied in different parts of the universe. > > > > LOL. I see you haven’t understood this at all, let alone read Townes. > > > > Townes measured the `primordial' abundance of the `light elements', in the > ISM. This has absolutely nothing to do with heavy elements in planets, all of > which have isotopes that come from second or third generation stars, and all > of which are vastly different from ‘primordial’ abundances, and each galaxy > will have incorporated literally trillions of unique isotope balances … > > > > ….or do you really think that out earth has a primordial balance of copper - > which was unaffected by the stellar event which formed out sun? This is > preposterous. Again you are showing an incredible intellectual deficit in > this argument – and that reflects poorly on Rossi. > > > > I am sure that in time, skeptics like Bob Park will pick up on this and beat > you into the dirt with it! It is so foolish for you to be promoting this kind > of bogosity! > > > > There are no heavy elements in the ISM spectrum which can be measured > accurately BTW and subsequent stellar processing of the light elements has > altered the relative abundances in every single star if you look close > enough. That’s right every single star has its own ratio of deuterium to > hydrogen to helium, and every single nova also produced heavier elements such > as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in absolutely unique ratios. > > > > Copper-63 exists in a different ratio on our own moon, for goodness sake! > There dozens of analyses of moon rocks online. When Kullander say it is > natural – that is for earth but do you really think that the Rossi reactor, > if one ever gets to the moon – will then magically shift gears and start > producing fusion debris that matches the natural abundance there? > > > > Geeze can’t you see the shallowness of your position? Stellar > nucleosynthesis is a function of initial mass and composition - and larger > mass stars and planets have isotopes which are very different from low mass - > so Townes work was on the ISM was essentially meaningless to this, and like > Newton’s work on alchemy – primitive! > > > > Give it up Rothwell – you are beyond wrong and I do not want to make you look > even more imbecilic by continuing this thread ad infinitum – but if you want > that as part of the record, then so be it. > > > > Please do take the time to read your references, though, as it makes things > work so much more smoothly … > > > > Jones > >
