3 ms·
Decades old crank theories are now hacker news?
by brazzy 17y ago
Decades old crank theories are now hacker news?
- windsurfer 17y agoThe article talks bout helium being present. How did it get there?
- brazzy 17y agoUm... Helium's the second most common element, by a huge margin.
- mechanical_fish 17y agoThough, to be precise, helium is not as common on Earth as it is in the universe at large, because our gravity isn't strong enough to keep it around in our atmosphere for very long. But it is made in big quantities by radioactive decay of elements inside the Earth. Whereupon most of it diffuses outward and escapes into space -- helium is a tiny, inert molecule which diffuses relatively easily even through many "solid" rocks. The only place it tends to pile up on the earth is inside relatively impermeable underground rock formations: The same ones that trap natural gas, and that often trap oil as well. That's the reason why helium and natural gas tend to be found together. All of which is easily read at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Chronos 17y agoUh, it's a question with a well-known answer. When uranium and other heavy radioactive elements decay, they often do so via alpha decay. What's an alpha particle? Two neutrons, two protons. Eventually the alpha particle slows down and captures some electrons. What is it now? An atom of Helium-4. If there is radioactive material buried in the earth (there is), and there are geological structures that trap it (there are), then there will be underground deposits of helium (specifically Helium-4). Other than the fact that the same rocks trapping helium can also trap natural gas, though, there is absolutely no further relation between the two. Why would there be? Helium is also found with deposits of radon gas, where no methane is present. BFD.
- gruseom 17y agoDecades old crank theories are now hacker news? This comment is a choice example of how ideologues drape themselves in (what they call) science. Whether he was right or wrong, no fair person could read that Wikipedia bio and come away thinking that Thomas Gold was a "crank".
- brazzy 17y agoActually, any fair person who read that article and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin would have to come away thinking that the man was drifting quite deeply into crank territory, other scientific merits nonewithstanding. It's a continuum after all, and not uncommon for scientists to become obsessed with an idea.