JeffreyW wrote: Gold is found on the surface in pure form. How did the gold get there?
You will not find this answer anywhere on the internet. I've looked.
That's a good question ....I put ....'how does gold form on earth' ...in search....Wikipedia again ......"Most of the Earth's gold probably lies at its core, the metal's high density having made it sink there in the planet's youth. Virtually all discovered gold is considered to have been deposited later by meteorites that contained the element, with the asteroid that formed Vredefort crater having been implicated in the formation of the largest gold mining region on earth, " ... that sounds reasonable...the LARGEST gold mining area on earth is where an ancient meteorite hit .
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666
.the LARGEST gold mining area on earth is where an ancient meteorite hit .
Gold is found on mountain tops, in valleys below mountain deposits, and in the deserts. I would agree that a large amount of energy is part of the recipe, whether that is electrical, impact, or gravitational. In Alaska gold is found on bedrock, under 20ft of permafrost dirt. And in old river beds under many feet of dirt. I can't see any connection to the mile deep mines or the mines in Peru with Alaska deposits. Off the coast of Nome, you can see gold laying on the bottom of the Bering Sea....
.the LARGEST gold mining area on earth is where an ancient meteorite hit .
Gold is found on mountain tops, in valleys below.....
Earth has been impacted by meteorites for many billions of years, fragments would travel every where , but the largest concentration is around this impact site,that clearly suggests meteorite origin.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Gold is found on the surface in pure form. How did the gold get there?
You will not find this answer anywhere on the internet. I've looked.
That's a good question ....I put ....'how does gold form on earth' ...in search....Wikipedia again ......"Most of the Earth's gold probably lies at its core, the metal's high density having made it sink there in the planet's youth. Virtually all discovered gold is considered to have been deposited later by meteorites that contained the element, with the asteroid that formed Vredefort crater having been implicated in the formation of the largest gold mining region on earth, " ... that sounds reasonable...the LARGEST gold mining area on earth is where an ancient meteorite hit .
I didn't want to go this route because the question becomes more damning for establishment:
How did the meteorites form? Gravity can't melt/weld together gold/iron! Establishment wants you to believe gravitation alone can make objects in the vacuum of outer space into things that look like this:
The iron sinking/heavy element sinking doesn't work regardless. Callisto is undifferentiated and Europa is smaller and differentiated. Why? Because one was an ancient star that took its time differentiating, and the other is simply impact remains that rounded out because of gravitation.
This is the essence of the theory. Meteorites are pieces of the hearts of ancient dead stars like the Earth/Mercury/Mars/Venus.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
the largest concentration is around this impact site,that clearly suggests meteorite origin.
Yes, an argument for, not conclusive proof. The meteor may be a mechanism that uncovers gold. The mountain top deposits are many times locked up in hard rocks, which erode to produce the gold found in rivers.
Gold is actually a relatively scarce element on the crust of the earth, but it occurs in trace quantities spread throughout many different kinds of rocks and in many different geological environments. ---- gold at the site of its deposition which was formed from mineralizing solutions within the earth. These deposits within solid rock are also the source of most of the new gold being mined today.-----The majority of the world's productive gold deposits, especially those found in volcanic and sedimentary rocks, formed from circulating ground waters driven by heat provided by bodies of magma (molten rock) intruded into the Earth's crust within about 2 miles of the earth's surface. ----As the water is heated, it dissolves metals from the surrounding rocks. When the heated waters rise to reach cooler rocks at shallower depths, metallic minerals precipitate to form veins within fault zones or blanket-like ore bodies within favorable strata graphic horizons.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think it is a really good post. I guess I could edit it, but editing takes too much time. I have posted this on the philosophy forum page:
I think the philosophy people on this forum can understand the most basic rule of logic and therefore science itself.
That rule is here:
Logic still works with the wrong assumptions and wrong information.
1. I am blue skinned. (wrong information) 2. All blue skinned people are not from Earth. (wrong assumption) 3. I am not from Earth. (logical conclusion)
I have learned that assumptions and wrong information rule the astrophysical sciences. Here are a list of things astronomers assume:
1. Earth is the same age as the Sun.
2. Jupiter is the same age as the Sun.
3. Saturn is the same age as the Sun.
4. Uranus (Uranium) is the same age as the Sun.
5. Neptune is the same age as the Sun.
6. Mars is the same age as the Sun.
7. Venus is the same age as the Sun.
8. Mercury is the same age as the Sun.
9. Pluto is the same age as the Sun.
10. All of the smaller objects in our vicinity such as Ceres, the asteroids, the Kuiper Belt objects, are all the same age as the Sun.
Notice a pattern here? They have taken completely different looking objects and made them the same age as the Sun. To establishment it doesn't matter that they are different compositions, many billions of miles/kilometers in distance, and even have their own "solar systems" such as Jupiter's moons, Saturn's moons, Uranus's (Uranium's) moons, Neptune's moons... They are all the same age as the Sun.
We have a problem here though. The Sun has never been radiometrically dated. Oooops. Guess what they did?
They took the ages of meteorites and radiometrically dated them. We have some assumptions here too:
1. They assume meteorites could never have come from outside of our solar system.
2. They assume the Sun is the same age radiometrically as meteorites. Even though there is zero connection between meteorites and the Sun.
3. Then we go full circle again, since the Sun is the same age as meteorites (assumed), and the objects all formed in the same area (assumed), then all the objects are the same age!
They call this the "logical conclusion"!
For the final conclusion of all this, you know why they took meteorites as being the base age for the solar system objects? Because they assumed that objects in solar systems form from a "protoplanetary disk" called the "nebular hypothesis".
They keep the nebular hypothesis. Why? It has been falsified by aging stars that the nebular hypothesis could never predict! They call these aging stars: exo-planets. The solution is simple. The Ockham's Razor for 21st century astrophysics/astronomy is to not keep "planets/stars" as being mutually exclusive. No protoplanetary disk is even needed!
Star evolution is planet formation itself.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think there's a knee jerk reaction to discount gravity just because the establishment loves it so much . If gravity didn't cause differentiation what did? Please give a time line of how Earth became what it is . It seems totally feasible that some gold came from meteorites ( broken up stars) since some would have gold in them .
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote: I think there's a knee jerk reaction to discount gravity just because the establishment loves it so much . If gravity didn't cause differentiation what did? Please give a time line of how Earth became what it is . It seems totally feasible that some gold came from meteorites ( broken up stars) since some would have gold in them .
I look at gravity like this: All objects fall with the same velocity. Remember the Apollo missions where they dropped a feather and a hammer and they fell at the same velocity?
Well, why is the core of the Earth iron? Why not carbon? Oxygen? Helium? Being "light" is irrelevant when it comes to gravity. People forget this often. Gravity doesn't differentiate. That takes electromagnetism, and depends on the properties of the matter itself.
In the beginning. LOLOLOL::
Stelmeta only starts at pulsars being born (I do not know how a pulsar is born)
Pulsar born, stores magnetic energy for very, very long time, energy builds up.
Pulsar leaves galaxy and drags a whole bunch of stars with it and starts growing.
Pulsar starts ejecting matter in bi-polar configurations (matter coming out of them).
This matter continues to form large clouds of material, and these clouds mix about creation large electrical disturbances.
The electrical disturbances dissipate their energy (and subsequently there's a lot of it) in the form of lighting.
Since there is no ground-cloud-ground exchange the electrical disturbance takes up a round shape (ball lighting, astronomers call these things "stars").
The star starts expanding rapidly (from white dwarf beginnings) and the shell grows into a giant, blue hot thing that shines all over the place. (thermal expansion).
As the heat dissipates, the shell starts contracting and the elements that are the most stable at higher temperatures an pressures, and electromagnetically stick to itself start clumping together. (iron/nickel).
Since the iron and nickel formed the structure for the shell to remain coherent, and it is clumping together (sunspots) it is heavier and thus does move towards the center of the star beginning core formation. But the initial argument that all matter sorts because of heaviness is bogus. Uranium and other heavier elements don't clump together like iron and nickel do. They are electromagnets.
Once the core starts forming, the other lower ionization potential elements start moving towards the center and layering on top of the iron core like how a pearl is made in an oyster. This moving of large amounts of matter will induce convection in the star in which heat from the new iron core rises up and convects all the way to the surface of the now red dwarf star (making it flare by large amounts/flare star stages).
Once the red dwarf has the majority of the core is formed and the beginnings of land starts forming from the ionized elements combining to form molecules into what are called rocks, the other ionized material such as the hydrogen and oxygen stays on top because it is more energetic.
This more energetic oxygen and hydrogen start forming hydroxide and water which then starts raining down on the interior of the core, further solidifying the land (brown dwarf/auburn dwarf stages).
This water is superheated and causes huge amounts of convection in the higher atmosphere of the star (Neptune stages).
All the while other elements combine into things like methane (from their ionized state) and form things like amino acids, which then rain down into the interior of the star.
Leftover hydrogen and carbon which are also highly abundant in the atmosphere start clumping together too forming long chains of molecules which also rain down into the still very hot core, and eventually get trapped and become highly pressurized by further buildup of the crust.
The left over water remains on the surface and the atmosphere remains as well. (Earth)
Over many billions of years the atmosphere and water oceans start evaporating, and leave the star as a desolate wasteland, (Mercury/Venus/Mars) which then wanders the galaxy smashing into other stars creating "asteroids".
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz:
It seems totally feasible that some gold came from meteorites---- .
Yes, I did some research and found that gold is 1000 times more prevalent on the near surface than deeper deposits. So, meteorites delivered gold and other metals...
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Jupiter has 60 moons!
It is not reasonable to assume that these were all suns. The best mechanism for this formation is fission from Jupiter.
You can keep kicking the dead horse, standard cosmology, since it is an easy target, but a real investigation of phenomenon will reveal that EU has more viable explanations. How such mechanisms work, I don't know, but Wal, CC and others are closing in on those.
It is not reasonable to assume that these were all suns. The best mechanism for this formation is fission from Jupiter.
You can keep kicking the dead horse, standard cosmology, since it is an easy target, but a real investigation of phenomenon will reveal that EU has more viable explanations. How such mechanisms work, I don't know, but Wal, CC and others are closing in on those.
Do all of Jupiter's moons have spherical iron cores differentiated from the other elements? In stellar metamorphosis a "star" or "dead star" absolutely either A. is forming an iron core as it evolves, or B. Has an iron core.
If the star smacks into another star it will leave a bunch of undifferentiated masses that can be considered Moons or asteroids, or even stay in orbit around a more evolved star such as Saturn to make up a "ring" system.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Stellar metamorphosis does not hypothesize the ejection from stars from other stars, it only hypothesizes that stars die and cool, differentiating their masses by the ionization energies of the material and simulaneously undergoing basic thermodynamics phase transitions: plasma to gas, gas to solids/liquids.
Thus Stellar Metamorphosis is NOT electric universe. These are two completely separate theories.
oz93666
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Gravity can't melt/weld together gold/iron!
Well.... I think it can . When a large body attracts and captures a piece of space rock it comes in at tremendous speed and when impact occurs this turns to heat. A lot of heat. On a planet like Earth with an atmosphere , a lot of this heat is kept high and radiated out to space. There are a lot of factors at play, frequency and size of impacts, how much radiant heat comes from a nearby star, but certainly in many cases impacts could result in turning the capturing body molten, this is and indisputable fact, and then gravity will cause separation in layers due to density, just as in a jar which contains mercury, water and oil, you will have 3 layers, so when things are molten differentiation will occur.
JeffreyW wrote: Callisto is undifferentiated and Europa is smaller and differentiated. Why?
We can say undifferentiated bodies, for sure were never stars, and were formed perhaps somewhere cool ,far from a star, perhaps slowly, so they never became molten. Differentiated bodies could have been stars, or could have formed under hot intense impacts which turned them molten and caused differentiation. I think for your theory to progress a greater understanding of gravity is required. I am constantly asking questions on 'ask yahoo' and going over the basics again and again on Wikipedia , we all have a lot to learn. p.s was just about to post this when I noticed Callisto an others ARE differentiated , they just don't have an iron core!...(we are told)
That's an interesting link, and begs the question why does Earth Mars and Pluto have satellites orbiting in almost perfect circles , and the other planets satellites orbit in ellipses?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
oz93666 wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Gravity can't melt/weld together gold/iron!
Well.... I think it can . When a large body attracts and captures a piece of space rock it comes in at tremendous speed and when impact occurs this turns to heat. A lot of heat. On a planet like Earth with an atmosphere , a lot of this heat is kept high and radiated out to space. There are a lot of factors at play, frequency and size of impacts, how much radiant heat comes from a nearby star, but certainly in many cases impacts could result in turning the capturing body molten, this is and indisputable fact, and then gravity will cause separation in layers due to density, just as in a jar which contains mercury, water and oil, you will have 3 layers, so when things are molten differentiation will occur.
JeffreyW wrote: Callisto is undifferentiated and Europa is smaller and differentiated. Why?
We can say undifferentiated bodies, for sure were never stars, and were formed perhaps somewhere cool ,far from a star, perhaps slowly, so they never became molten. Differentiated bodies could have been stars, or could have formed under hot intense impacts which turned them molten and caused differentiation. I think for your theory to progress a greater understanding of gravity is required. I am constantly asking questions on 'ask yahoo' and going over the basics again and again on Wikipedia , we all have a lot to learn. p.s was just about to post this when I noticed Callisto an others ARE differentiated , they just don't have an iron core!...(we are told)
That is friction that heats up a rock not gravity. If there was no friction there would be no heat. Again, gravity doesn't weld/heat things. You can make an object accelerate as fast as you want, but if there is no friction from air resistance, it will not heat up. We have attributed gravity to heating things which is very incorrect.
We don't need to understand "gravity" more in a sense of applying it to other things. We in essence need to understand gravity less, and stop making it do things that it doesn't, like heating things. Friction from atmospheric re-entry is what causes meteorites to melt, thus for anything to melt because of "gravity" in outer space there needs to be a gravitating body already present, as well as something to cause friction.
In other words, gravity can give the object direction to fall in and make it go faster, but that's it. The heating is caused by friction.
This means the nebular hypothesis does not work, because it assumes there are gravity fields absent gravitating bodies which can hold appreciable atmosphers, thus also absent atmospheres to give air resistance to cause friction and then "melt planets together in the vacuum". Not only that, but purely mathematical "gravity fields" is complete fiction. They only exist in math equations, you need a gravitating body to cause a "gravity field".
http://www.mining.com/web/worlds-top-10-gold-deposits/
