Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Don't forget, that the tree is full of water when it petrifies. Probably half the weight, or more, of a tree when it is alive is water, so there is your Oxygen.
Think about it, when you look at a piece of petrified wood it is solid through and through. There are no holes where the sap flowed. If just the wood petrified, it would be porous.
allynh wrote: Look at the list of silicate materials and notice how much oxygen is tied up by very little silicon.
All that extra Oxygen in the silicates comes from the entrained water.
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
I see. :)
As for the minerals in wood,
The most common cations found in wood are calcium, potassium, and magnesium; common anions include carbonate, sulfate, phosphate, and silicate. These make up the noncombustible part of the wood, the ash.
Perhaps these small amounts of minerals in wood could also provide the color to the quartz. The minerals vary widely depending on soil and tree type, and could explain why you get sometimes very "chaotic" colors, and sometimes very orderly... ?
These Pyrite fossils could fall right into the lap of a case for fossilization by transmutation. It can't be a waterborne mineral, can it? And look at this amazing cell structure: http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/research/igt ... ilwood.htm If Fe=2Si+2H Si=C+O S=O+O Although, it looks like a lot of shells get pyratized.
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
I find the subject of pyratization to be a little confusing. Here is an abstract stating some success at repeating the process:
The process of fossilization is poorly understood. However, it is central to our understanding of the evolution of life. It is unclear how plant tissues become fossilized, whether fossilization is selective to specific biopolymers, or whether original organic constituents survive. We have replicated the fossilization process in the laboratory by using both microbial and chemical approaches to pyritize plant debris. These results demonstrate that initial pyritization can be an extremely rapid process (within 80 days) and is driven by anaerobic bacterial-mediated decay. Initially, pyrite precipitates on and within plant cell walls and in the spaces between them. Further decay and infilling at all scales preserves broad cellular anatomy. The results have implications for fossilization in general and the fidelity of the taxonomic and biomolecular information preserved in fossils.
Wik says that pyrite reacts with both air and water:
Pyrite exposed to the atmosphere during mining and excavation reacts with oxygen and water to form sulfate, resulting in acid mine drainage.
And it is clear that pyrite fossils are hard to preserve once they are exposed.
The preservation of pyrite is a difficult problem. In damp conditions it rapidly decomposes to oxides of iron and sulphuric acid. This destroys any associated calcite and damages bone. Most attempts to preserve pyrite, ranging from varnishes to 5% cetrimide solution are relatively ineffective. Washing, neutralisation and storage in silicon fluid appears to be the best currently available method
Could it travel in water and fossilize something, or not?
allynh
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Brigit wrote: Could it travel in water and fossilize something, or not?
No, LOL.
That's been the main point of what I'm saying, the combination of chemicals, isotopes, etc..., found together in the various fossils can't come together from outside sources, since all of the chemical structures are fragile and easily dissolved once exposed.
The thing to find out is, do those examples of petrified wood that have been mentioned up thread have pyrites in them. Especially the ones that were found as forests of stone trees. If they do, yet there is no concentrations of Iron and Sulfur in the surrounding soil, that would indicate transmutation.
- No outside source = no substitution.
At that point it would be up to the geologists to explain where the pyrites came from, and how an entire forest could be fossilized.
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* Brigit said [long ago]:
- I think you may be relying on Lithium too much. Could that be? I see Australia exports quite a few tons, but it is not very abundant in earth's crust. Likewise with Boron, which you tend to use a lot. Oxygen is the ozone, in the atmosphere, in the water, and in most of the rocks. That's four convenient locations for all your transmutation needs! - Perhaps it is just not heavy enough? I was looking at the difference in atomic numbers between rows 5 and 6 (most of them) and the difference is 32-- 4 Oxygens have been added.
* The list of transmutations involving oxygen that I gave were only those that were possible. It came from my other list on the transmutation thread, which showed all of the mathematically possible transmutations up to Rubidium. I made the new list to see if oxygen could account for much of the elements that are found up to Rubidium. And it can. Now don't complain that Li, Be, B, F etc are uncommon elements. They work with oxygen. That's what I was testing for. * Now here's a list of Abundance of Elements in Earth's Crust up to iron Z –Times Expected — Element — Ppb. 1 — <2.30E+02 — H - Hydrogen — 0.0015 2 — <1.08E+07 — He - Helium — 0.000000008 3 — <2.50E+03 — Li - Lithium — 0.00002 4 — <1.48E+04 — Be - Beryllium — 0.0000026 5 — <3.21E+03 — B - Boron — 0.00001 6 — <6.00E+01 — C - Carbon — 0.00048 7 — <9.91E+02 — N - Nitrogen — 0.000025 8 — 21.7…….. — O - Oxygen — 0.47 9 — <1.90E+01 — F - Fluorine — 0.00095 10 — <2.46E+08 — Ne - Neon — 7E-11 11 — 1.52…….. — Na - Sodium — 0.023 12 — 161…….. — Mg - Magnesium — 0.023 13 — 6.38…….. — Al - Aluminum — 0.082 14 — 22.7…….. — Si - Silicon — 0.28 15 — <1.10E+01 — P - Phosphorus — 0.001 16 — <4.20E+01 — S - Sulfur — 0.00026 17 — <7.50E+01 — Cl - Chlorine — 0.00013 18 — <7.24E+03 — Ar - Argon — 0.0000012 19 — 2.37…….. — K - Potassium — 0.021 20 — 4.74…….. — Ca - Calcium — 0.041 21 — <4.82E+02 — Sc - Scandium — 0.000016 22 — <1.00E+00 — Ti - Titanium — 0.0056 23 — <4.30E+01 — V - Vanadium — 0.00016 24 — <6.70E+01 — Cr - Chromium — 0.0001 25 — <7.00E+00 — Mn - Manganese — 0.00095 26 — 6.6…….. — Fe - Iron — 0.041 27 — <2.94E+02 — Co - Cobalt — 0.00002 28 — <7.40E+01 — Ni - Nickel — 0.00008 29 — <1.09E+02 — Cu - Copper — 0.00005 30 — <7.10E+01 — Zn - Zinc — 0.000075 * Only Oxygen, Sodium, Magnesium, Aluminum, Silicon, Potassium, Calcium & Iron seem to be more abundant than expected. * Do you agree it's reasonable that elements were built up from Hydrogen? I suggested that Helium apparently came from 4 Hydrogens, in which 2 collapsed into neutrons. I suggested that Oxygen was built up from 4 Heliums. If we find out how 3Li7, 4Be9, 5B11 and 9Fl19 formed, then we have all the elements up to Bromine. The first 9 elements' numbers are: 1H1, 2He4, 3Li7, 4Be9, 5B11, 6C12, 7N14, 8O16 and 9Fl19. If we look at just the numbers, they're 1:1, 2:4, 3:7, 4:9, 5:11, 6:12, 7:14, 8:16, 9:19. 1:1+1:1+0:1+0:1=2:4 or 1:1+1:1+2n=2:4 [0:1 is a neutron]. 1:1+2:4+2n=3:7 2:4+2:4+1n=4:9 1:1+2:4+2:4+2n=5:11 2:4+2:4+2:4=6:12 1:1+2:4+2:4+2:4+1n=7:14 2:4+2:4+2:4+2:4=8:16 1:1+2:4+2:4+2:4+2:4+1n=9:19. * Hydrogen atoms might convert into the needed neutrons. * All the rest up to Bromine can be produced by transmutation from those elements plus Oxygen. Na_11:23 = O+Li Al_13:27 = O+B Si_14:28 = O+C S__16:32 = O+O Cl_17:35 = O+F Ar_18:40 = Co-F, Cr-C, V-B K__19:39 = O+Na Ca_20:40 = O+Mg Sc_21:45 = Na+2B T__22:48 = Cl+B V__23:51 = Cl+2Li Cr_24:52 = V+H, Sc+Li, T+He Mn_25:55 = Cl+2Be, T+Li, V+He Fe_26:56 = Sc+B, Si+4Li, Cl+3Li, Cr+He Fe'26:54 = 2Si-2H Co_27:59 = T+B, Cr+Li, Sc+2Li, Mn+H3 Ni_28:58 = Ca+2Be Ni'28:62 = Mn+Li Cu_29:63 = V+C, Sc+2Be, Fe+Li, Co+He Cu'29:65 = V+2Li Zn_30:64 = Cr+C Zn'30:66 = T+2Be, Mn+B, Cu+H, Co+Li, Cr+2Li, Ni+He Ga_31:69 = V+2Be, Mn+2Li, Cu+He Ge_32:72 = Cu+Li, V+3Li Br_35:79 = Ge+Li, Cu+2Li * So remember that this is about trying to determine how the elements originally built up, instead of determining how fossils transmuted. It's going a step or more back before there were creatures that could fossilize. * Also, note that less common elements, like Lithium etc, may be more stable when they combine with other elements via transmutation to form something else. So, after Lithium is formed it will tend to combine with something, rather than remain Lithium. That seems to be true of most of the elements.
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
* Allyn said:
the combination of chemicals, isotopes, etc..., found together in the various fossils can't come together from outside sources, since all of the chemical structures are fragile and easily dissolved once exposed
* You seem to have overlooked an earlier post here that mentioned petrified wood, I think, forming in hot mineralized water. I believe it said that the wood absorbed a lot of minerals, while soaking in the water. If you have a cut flower, or plant, in a vase of mineralized water, won't the plant take up the minerals along with the water? I'm pretty sure it will.
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
That's perfect! It will be very helpful to have some idea of the elements if we want to get more specific about living organisms being transmuted into fossils. It just seems so lamentable that there isn't a great deal of testing and experimentation to refer to. What do they pay these scientists to do all day?
I did find this--
In 1980, writes historian Trevor Levere, University of California physicists turned an "unimaginably small sample of bismuth into gold," turning one element into another through the medium of a particle accelerator. We call such things experimental science; a medieval scholar would have called it alchemy, a lay observer magic--all of which, by Levere's account, describe modern chemistry.
--Only he is working in the opposite direction, from bismuth to gold.
I find it so interesting that the most reactive elements seem to work for transmutation, ie, Lloyd uses Lithium a lot and never uses Nitrogen. Now that is not a complaint! It just seems like transmutation is a totally different process than chemical reactions, in that the emphasis is on the protons and neutrons, not the electrons. allynh also showed the valence shells filling up and seeking stability in the transmutation process. But it seems like plenty of reactive elements are formed as well.
At any rate, the only heavier elements we need to address are Gold, and Iridium, since they come up so much. Gold should involve Si since it is associated with quartz, shouldn't it?
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Lloyd remarked, * So remember that this is about trying to determine how the elements originally built up, instead of determining how fossils transmuted. It's going a step or more back before there were creatures that could fossilize.
Unless the heavier elements were formed episodically during catastrophes...
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Probably for another thread, but is there any chance at all that the atomic masses do not apply in the same way for transmutation as for chemistry?
Brigit Bara
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Yes I know that last question is more trouble than it is worth! So never mind!
Lloyd
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
is there any chance at all that the atomic masses do not apply in the same way for transmutation as for chemistry?
* The atomic masses are essential for determining possible transmutation routes, but they're usually irrelevant in normal chemistry. I showed above how to mathematically transmute any element into gold etc.
physicists turned an "unimaginably small sample of bismuth into gold," turning one element into another through the medium of a particle accelerator
Researchers have found blood vessels and proteins in an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur fossil, strengthening evidence that tissue remains really can be extracted from such ancient fossils.
This joins the prior t-rex fossil in the category of "unfossilized remnants retrieved."
So, is this proof that fossilization is an extremely long-term thing in that it takes a long, long time for something to become a fossil, thus soft tissues can remain unmolested for a long time during the process? Or is it refutation of the process, since one would think that such tissues should have long ago ceased to be? Were the remains "mummified," "fossilized" or both?
Regards, ~Michael Gmirkin
allynh
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
Soft tissue tells me that the timeline must be massively compressed. Not 70 to 80 million years but under a million. We are talking fast, intensely fast, evolution that goes along with the changing conditions on the planet when massive growth spurts occur.
I just ordered the book, The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive? by Peter Ward.
His concept is that life does not find balance, it fills all niches then destroys the biosystem. He is not a catastrophist, except for life self destructing, his timeline is the standard billions and millions of years. I would love to have a paleontologist like that come over to the Fringe side and play.
Combined with all the stuff talked about on the Forum I see planets born quickly, start growing, get seeded with life, and that life either evolves until it can gain control of the environment or it's killed by all the active processes going on around it and the next wave of successful species get their chance.
But then that's just me and my whacky imagination speaking.
nick c
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
hi Michael,
So, is this proof that fossilization is an extremely long-term thing in that it takes a long, long time for something to become a fossil, thus soft tissues can remain unmolested for a long time during the process? Or is it refutation of the process, since one would think that such tissues should have long ago ceased to be? Were the remains "mummified," "fossilized" or both?
I think it constitutes an overwhelming refutation. How could the tissue remain intact while the surrounding bone is undergoing the "slow" process of fossilization? It seems to me, the outer layers must have been rapidly fossilized enclosing the tissue. Even so, how long could soft tissue be preserved? Certainly, 63+ million years seems to be unreasonable. Nevertheless, I am quite confident that mainstream will manage to come up with some exotic or ad hoc explanation that does not let the evidence get in the way of their uniformitarian required time scale.
The results show "we don't really understand as much as we thought about how cells and tissues and molecules degrade in the protected environment of bone," said Schweitzer. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2725 ... d-dinosaur
That this is the 2nd example indicates there is probably much more to be discovered, especially since the first (T-rex) example was discovered by accident only a few years ago. Of course, they would never have looked for it before. I am sure if you asked a paleontologist, previous to the discovery, he would have emphatically told you that dinosaur soft tissue preservation was impossible!
nick c
allynh
Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?
There have been many TPODs that talk about "The Finger of God" illusion created by the red shift being misunderstood. The fact that the illusion occurs when you look in any direction of the sky, with everything pointing to us, shows that red shift does not mean recessional velocity. The same thing applies for the various dating systems used in geological dating.
I think that it is strange, that the farther back in time we look, the more stable things get, the longer they last. Look at the Geological time scales, and notice that the farther in the past you look, the longer each time frame is.
What you are seeing is the "Geological Finger of God" pointing to the present.
When red shift is no longer recessional velocity, space gets smaller. If we could do the same with the geological dating, the Earth would get younger; much younger.
It just seems like transmutation is a totally different process than chemical reactions, in that the emphasis is on the protons and neutrons, not the electrons. allynh also showed the valence shells filling up and seeking stability in the transmutation process. But it seems like plenty of reactive elements are formed as well.
