Where that metal in your coins originated... according to astronomers

Unless it's GoldSchlager!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Let them eat cake...and drink gold!

 

Created by merging neutron stars, captured by the early Earth from a nebula cloud and stired in the molten interiors of the young planet, then deposited by volcanic activity Billions of years ago in what would eventually become the continent of Europe. Mined by Carthagenian slaves in the silver mines of Hispania (Spain) in late 146 or early 145 BCE, and struck in Rome in 145 BCE, probably by Macedonian Greek slaves captured from the recent Macedonian Wars. Then spent by ancient Romans and burried in a hoard for two millennia until dug up. Eventually it entered the marketplace and was sold by NFC in the early 1970s in a mail auction for $94 Dollars, and then resold by the dealer Joel Matel in 1977 for $96 Dollars. Eventually sold to Civitas Galleries (probably as part of an estate sale) in the 2010's and purchased by me in 2016 for $140.


M. Junius Silanus denarius
Rome Mint, 145 BCE

 

I personally prefer gold pressed lattinum

 

I guess I'll feel a little differently when I pack my lunch tomorrow morning knowing that a star died in a supernova billions of years ago to furnish the aluminum foil I wrap my food up in!

 

How about the star that died to furnish the molecules you, yourself, are wrapped in: those which make up your skin?

 

Picture this...the big bang created matter and antimatter. Luckily there was more matter than anti-matter and enough matter was left to have Hydrogen. Then that material was forged in giant blue stars with very short lives, and which died violent deaths, to create the heavier elements that allowed for longer lived stars and nebulas. Eventually one such nebula in this cycle created the sun and earth...and the rest is history. Really fascinating stuff. Our atoms could have passed through a dozen stars or so before we got here. And some of your atoms could have made up elements like gold or silver before being broken down inside another star and combined into newer and different elements, and eventually forming part of your body somewhere down the line.

 

All of which is predicated on the big bang. I, personally, have always had more of a non-Euclidean approach to this matter. Always made more sense to me.

 

<looking at the junk on my desk>
.
.
.
<trying to imagine how many dead stars are represented there>
.
.
.

 

Yes, but wouldn't a non-Euclidean approach still make allowance for the big bang as one of a possibly infinite number of "explanations" for the origin of the universe(s)?

 

Sure, but it would be infinitely in the past so we could essentially ignore it. It wouldn't really be a bang, it would be more of a puff.

 

I'm afraid you've lost me now. What exactly would be the imperative responsible for restricting/consigning the Big Bang to a space-time locus in a murky "infinite past"?

 

But I guess all that matters is that I possibly used to be a carrot, and that carrot used to be a star, so now I'm a star.

 

Non-Euclidean geometry can stretch things infinitely.

 

That may be so, but don't we have to take into account that while Non-Euclidian geometry allows us to formulate workable theories ABOUT the universe it still has to "co-exist" with Euclidian geometry when it comes to the PHYSICAL REALITY of the universe?

 

No it does. Euclidean is only good locally. Relativity is all non-Euclidean.

 

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din, which is to say, you are indeed correct.