home
 
 

 
1966~1980
Thunderbolts Forum


Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Water in space is produced by hydrogen interacting with eroded silicate;

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1732
The solar wind (SW), composed of predominantly ∼1-keV H+ ions, produces amorphous rims up to ∼150 nm thick on the surfaces of minerals exposed in space. Silicates with amorphous rims are observed on interplanetary dust particles and on lunar and asteroid soil regolith grains. Implanted H+ may react with oxygen in the minerals to form trace amounts of hydroxyl (−OH) and/or water (H2O). Previous studies have detected hydroxyl in lunar soils, but its chemical state, physical location in the soils, and source(s) are debated. If −OH or H2O is generated in rims on silicate grains, there are important implications for the origins of water in the solar system and other astrophysical environments. By exploiting the high spatial resolution of transmission electron microscopy and valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy, we detect water sealed in vesicles within amorphous rims produced by SW irradiation of silicate mineral grains on the exterior surfaces of interplanetary dust particles. Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.
On Earth it's possible that either hydrogen bombardment is interacting with oxygen/ozone in the atmosphere to produce water, or deep hydrogen is reacting with eroded silicates in the crust to produce it. Probably both.

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Aardwolf wrote:
Water in space is produced by hydrogen interacting with eroded silicate;

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1732
The solar wind (SW), composed of predominantly ∼1-keV H+ ions, produces amorphous rims up to ∼150 nm thick on the surfaces of minerals exposed in space. Silicates with amorphous rims are observed on interplanetary dust particles and on lunar and asteroid soil regolith grains. Implanted H+ may react with oxygen in the minerals to form trace amounts of hydroxyl (−OH) and/or water (H2O). Previous studies have detected hydroxyl in lunar soils, but its chemical state, physical location in the soils, and source(s) are debated. If −OH or H2O is generated in rims on silicate grains, there are important implications for the origins of water in the solar system and other astrophysical environments. By exploiting the high spatial resolution of transmission electron microscopy and valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy, we detect water sealed in vesicles within amorphous rims produced by SW irradiation of silicate mineral grains on the exterior surfaces of interplanetary dust particles. Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.
On Earth it's possible that either hydrogen bombardment is interacting with oxygen/ozone in the atmosphere to produce water, or deep hydrogen is reacting with eroded silicates in the crust to produce it. Probably both.
I don't think its that complicated. I just think hydrogen gas combines with oxygen gas under higher pressures and temperatures.

Chemical exothermic reactions produce the vast majority of the heat of evolving stars. This is why Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and even Uranus radiate as much as if not more energy they receive from the Sun, and will continue to do so as they form the "Earths" in their interiors. We have ample evidence of these chemical combination reactions having taken place all over the Earth:

Image

ALL of these compounds (except for the native elements) were formed in fact via exothermic reactions, as heat would be released from bond formation. You don't get chemical bonding for free, the gravitational potential of the collapsing star provides the energy for these vast chemical combination reactions to occur inside of the star. The compounds listed constitute the 7 major mineral groups.




http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_chapter.asp?id=10&page=3
Saturn's excess heat is generated by the precipitation of helium into its metallic hydrogen core.

With statements like this it becomes obvious they have ignored ALL chemistry, and the fact that if they are to have a cohesive "planet formation" model, they need to include how the chemicals on the Earth formed. Just ignoring them doesn't make them go away. (I have also noticed the typo in the graph, carbon is C, Gold is Au, Silver is Ag)

Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

It happens inside of the brown dwarf where the pressures are high enough to sustain convection when these reactions occur. The reason why it "explodes" in this example is because the pressure and temperature are already really low inside of the environment in which the reaction occurs, which is standard temp and pressure of the atm of the Earth.
I don't think its that complicated. I just think hydrogen gas combines with oxygen gas under higher pressures and temperatures.
Your imagination is not consistent!!

Why wouldn't the H and O combine with other elements under those conditions?

Imagination, or just hand waving isn't a substitute for evidence!!

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

aardwolf:
Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.

On Earth it's possible that either hydrogen bombardment is interacting with oxygen/ozone in the atmosphere to produce water, or deep hydrogen is reacting with eroded silicates in the crust to produce it. Probably both.
Thank you, but you presented conclusions and possibilities.
What is the chemistry to support their conclusions? I get the impression that OH is found and supposed to be water!
If −OH or H2O is generated in rims on silicate grains, -----we detect water sealed in vesicles within amorphous rims produced by SW irradiation of silicate mineral grains
IF?! Where is the science.? Why would silicate facilitate OH and H2O generation? What other elements would facilitate H2O production?
Can H2O from ozone bombardment by electrons be demonstrated?

Jeffrey claims to be the expert here, so I assumed that the burden of proof for his claims was on him...So far all he has done is hand waving!

Hell, I can do that: look at Earth! See all of the water! Must be generated on and in the Earth by electrical discharges and resulting transmutations! :roll:

Anywho, I don't know the mechanism, can't find a mechanism, but there the water is, so there must be a mechanism.....Where are the chemists ????? :D:?

thanks

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Sparky wrote:


Hell, I can do that: look at Earth! See all of the water! Must be generated on and in the Earth by electrical discharges and resulting transmutations! :roll:

Electrical discharges from what to what? If water experiences an electrical discharge it undergoes electrolysis and separates into its separate parts, oxygen gas and hydrogen gas. Electrical currents can't make water, they break the bonds. Water is destroyed with electrical currents.

Image

Transmutations? Oxygen combining with hydrogen is a combination exothermic reaction. Electrolysis is a decomposition reaction and absorbs electrical current, releasing the bonds, destroying the water molecules.

It goes back and forth just like that, its not hard to understand.

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

In addition to exothermic/endothermic reactions, and combination/decomposition reactions we have spontaneous/non-spontaneous reactions.

1. Non-spontaneous means you need to produce an extra variable as in an electrical current in electrolysis.

2. spontaneous means that nothing additional needs to be done, as in lithium dropped in water producing lithium hydroxide in an aqueous solution and hydrogen gas

Image

In stellar evolution the majority of the chemical combination reactions are stepped reactions, with the majority of them being spontaneous. By stepped I mean oxygen first has to combine with oxygen and hydrogen with hydrogen, then O2 gas combines with H2 gas. After the thermochemistry is completely then the material can deposit as solid structure and crystallize, or as liquid structure that gets buried by more solid structure preventing evaporation as in natural gas.

Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Oxygen combining with hydrogen is a combination exothermic reaction.
Exactly! So, give us the details, not just the hand waving.

Oh, your quoting me was me making fun of your inability to explain anything in detail.

You have been dodging a detailed explanation for quite a few posts. Just hand waving!
You go off on tangents, trying to impress people by what you know, but I doubt that it is working. I don't get answers, just hand waving. You don't even recognize my obvious sarcasm... :roll:

You don't seem to understand that the overview is "simple", but to really get to the chemistry reactions requires a bit more understanding of the process.

I am waiting for a chemist to show up. I really want to know where all of this water came from.

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Sparky wrote:
Oxygen combining with hydrogen is a combination exothermic reaction.
Exactly! So, give us the details, not just the hand waving.

Oh, your quoting me was me making fun of your inability to explain anything in detail.

You have been dodging a detailed explanation for quite a few posts. Just hand waving!
You go off on tangents, trying to impress people by what you know, but I doubt that it is working. I don't get answers, just hand waving. You don't even recognize my obvious sarcasm... :roll:

You don't seem to understand that the overview is "simple", but to really get to the chemistry reactions requires a bit more understanding of the process.

I am waiting for a chemist to show up. I really want to know where all of this water came from.
Hydrogen and oxygen (as well as all naturally occurring elements) are produced as a direct result of galaxy birth:

Image

The stars then form as dissipative structures to get rid of the energy of galaxy birth. As a star is born:

Image

It ionizes the material in the center.

Once all the material is ionized it then expands greatly like a balloon to dissipate the energy of formation:

Image

As the material undergoes plasma recombination, all the matter the star was formed out of will condense and combine as the star cools and becomes a red dwarf:

Image

the free ions of hydrogen combine with other hydrogen making hydrogen gas, and free ions of oxygen combine with other oxygen making oxygen gas during brown dwarf stages:

Image

As the star continues to cool and dissipate the heat the gaseous oxygen combines with the gaseous hydrogen making water vapor during blue dwarf stages:

Image


This water vapor is superheated and further undergoes another phase transition and becomes water which rains down into the interior of the star, further cooling it to eventually form a crust with oceans on top.

Image

In other words, the water was always there, only in its plasma form in the earliest stages of evolution, to its gaseous parts, to its combined parts (water vapor) to its liquid form (water).

The planet is the ancient star and the star is the new planet. They were never mutually exclusive objects to begin with.

Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Do you really believe that the images you post explain or help to explain anything? :roll:
Not when they are accompanied by "HAND WAVING"!!
:roll:

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Sparky wrote:
Do you really believe that the images you post explain or help to explain anything? :roll:
Not when they are accompanied by "HAND WAVING"!!
:roll:
I just explained it. You seem to not understand that a star evolves into what humans call "planet". That is the #1 problem. I know for a fact you haven't read any of the papers I have written either. Its obvious.

Don't worry though you are not alone. There are many millions of college educated people in the same boat as you. We literally have to wait until they retire or die before we can move on past their failed theories of "planet formation". Science progresses one funeral at a time, I guess its true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2679337/Scientists-NO-idea-planets-form-Discovery-hundreds-new-w orlds-left-experts-baffled.html

Planet formation is star evolution. They are the same exact objects only in different stages to their evolution.

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

The main goal in terms of chemistry, utilizing the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is that we can take much larger chemical compounds such as these hydrocarbons:

Image

and work our way backwards to their more basic parts such as:

Image

and even further backwards to their individual components as the gases were monoatomic and charged as a plasma (inside of young stars like the Sun).

Image

Image

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Another very important aspect that belongs firmly inside the general theory of stellar metamorphosis is the eventual prediction of the compositions of evolving stars older than the Sun, such as Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn and even the Earth.

There currently exist no predictive models or theories that can be used to determine the eventual evolution of Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn or the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn

These articles mention zero about these stars' evolutionary path. It is like scientists think they are static things that do not change/evolve. This is very, very bad and means astronomers do not understand even the objects that are right next door.

Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

JeffreyW wrote:
I don't think its that complicated. I just think hydrogen gas combines with oxygen gas under higher pressures and temperatures.
I don't understand why you think this is more complicated than your process. The hydrogen is combining with oxygen without the pressure and temperature you require.

Water production is easy. It's also a byproduct of breathing.

JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Here is Jupiter in the infrared.

It is a hell-like world. It is a brown dwarf star that is still cooling. An intermediately aged star that is synthesizing elements into chemical compounds and undergoing vast amounts of spontaneous exothermic reactions and non-spontaneous reactions fueled by gravitational potential energy.

Image

To establishment, this is a planet that is the left over remains of the Sun. It is not, it is an ancient brown dwarf star older than the Sun. It is what the Sun will become as it evolves into intermediate stages of stellar evolution. The reason why its rings are mostly rock and not ice is because of ionizing radiation. It is still shining.

Aardwolf
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Sparky wrote:
aardwolf:
Our findings establish that water is a byproduct of SW space weathering. We conclude, on the basis of the pervasiveness of the SW and silicate materials, that the production of radiolytic SW water on airless bodies is a ubiquitous process throughout the solar system.

On Earth it's possible that either hydrogen bombardment is interacting with oxygen/ozone in the atmosphere to produce water, or deep hydrogen is reacting with eroded silicates in the crust to produce it. Probably both.
Thank you, but you presented conclusions and possibilities.
What is the chemistry to support their conclusions? I get the impression that OH is found and supposed to be water!
This isn't a chemical experiment. They are just reporting that they found water on the silicate rims of solar wind weathered particles using an electron microscope. This is quite different to measurement of cometary tails from distance. OH is found on the rims as well as water and both are produced by this weathering.
Sparky wrote:
If −OH or H2O is generated in rims on silicate grains, -----we detect water sealed in vesicles within amorphous rims produced by SW irradiation of silicate mineral grains
IF?! Where is the science.? Why would silicate facilitate OH and H2O generation? What other elements would facilitate H2O production?
Can H2O from ozone bombardment by electrons be demonstrated?
The "If" was nothing to do with their experiment they were just stating if they found water it has important implications. They did find water and it does have important implications. Silicates are around 50% oxygen and the solar wind is 50% protons (H). It wouldnt take a much for highly reactive bare hydrogen atoms to bond with excess oxygen. The abstract clearly points out the mechanism.
Sparky wrote:
Anywho, I don't know the mechanism, can't find a mechanism, but there the water is, so there must be a mechanism.....Where are the chemists ????? :D:?
Hydrogen and oxygen are 2 of the most abundent elements in the universe and it doesn't take alot to bind them.

Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Jeffrey
The main goal in terms of chemistry, utilizing the General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis is that we can take much larger chemical compounds such as these hydrocarbons:-----------and work our way backwards to their more basic parts
Well, this is a little better. Now what reactions, found in nature, would produce water?

*********************************************************
Sparky wrote:Anywho, I don't know the mechanism, can't find a mechanism, but there the water is, so there must be a mechanism.....Where are the chemists ????? :D:?
Hydrogen and oxygen are 2 of the most abundent elements in the universe and it doesn't take alot to bind them.
Aardwolf, thank you, but I still don't see the mechanism that produced a wet planet.

Do we need hydrocarbons to burn in massive quantities to make an ocean? :?

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US
NEXT →