Henry J
Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
| Quote | Wow, how wrong could he be? A molecule is incapable of decay, generation, or destruction? Wrong-o.
Maybe what he meant was atoms? And even then he's still wrong. |
Destruction maybe, but what would "decay" or "generation" even mean with regard to molecules? Or was "generation" being used to mean the formation of a molecule from other molecules or atoms?
And I certainly don't know what "growth" might mean in regard to a molecule. Sure it might combine with other atoms to make a larger molecule, but it'd be a different molecule (i.e., different chemical substance), not a larger version of the same one.
(Otoh, why am I asking what something from over there might mean?)
--------------------
| Quote | | when the sun burned chemically |
Or collapsed gravitationally. Though I don't know which of those hypotheses came or went first. Though either of them puts a rather limited time frame (relative to billions of years, that is) on the sun's operational timespan.
Henry
|
