APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
and where did the gold come from ?
Wolf Kotenberg
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18573
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.ta152h0 wrote:and where did the gold come from ?
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
sank! Sunk is the past participle!Chris Peterson wrote:Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.ta152h0 wrote:and where did the gold come from ?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18573
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
Yes, Ms Grammar Nazi. Of course, in my quest to simplify and normalize English, what I really intended was "sinked".owlice wrote:sank! Sunk is the past participle!Chris Peterson wrote:Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
or as my former English teacher would have said " sunken ".......
Wolf Kotenberg
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18573
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
No, that's the future pluriciple. She should have said "sanken".ta152h0 wrote:or as my former English teacher would have said " sunken ".......
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
-
- Don't bring me down
- Posts: 2524
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
- AKA: Bruce
- Location: East Idaho
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt?Chris Peterson wrote:Like all the heavy elements, gold is produced by nucleosynthesis in supernovas. Gold is very unreactive, so when the Earth was still molted it sunk into the core without forming mineral compounds. So the surface gold we have on Earth was probably introduced later by collisions with comets and asteroids.ta152h0 wrote:and where did the gold come from ?
A fuzzy logic spell checker strikes again.
Just as zero is not equal to infinity, everything coming from nothing is illogical.
- DavidLeodis
- Perceptatron
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:00 pm
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
I feel the need for some molt liquor (or at least a glass of ).
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
OUCH! This 'sharper' thread has turned into a 'cutting edge' use of inglash.
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18573
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
I believe it was triggered by the Late Heavy Bombardment.BDanielMayfield wrote:What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt?
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
Not sure. I believe the Earth molted whilst partially molten, after Theia struck to form the Moon. This was a few hundred million years before the LHB. Of course, this theory might be sunk one day. (Re: "future pluriciple", mind your language please Chris! )Chris Peterson wrote:I believe it was triggered by the Late Heavy Bombardment.BDanielMayfield wrote:What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt?
-
- Don't bring me down
- Posts: 2524
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
- AKA: Bruce
- Location: East Idaho
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
Since we're declaring personal beliefs ... (made moderators nervous, I bet) ... I believe that the evidence for a major protoplanetary collision as a cause for our Moon's existence is compelling; therefore I'm compelled to believe that this collision did occur.Nitpicker wrote:Not sure. I believe the Earth molted whilst partially molten, after Theia struck to form the Moon. This was a few hundred million years before the LHB. Of course, this theory might be sunk one day. (Re: "future pluriciple", mind your language please Chris! )Chris Peterson wrote:I believe it was triggered by the Late Heavy Bombardment.BDanielMayfield wrote:What I wonder is not when to use sunk sank or sink, but rather, when did the Earth molt?
Real question: since the energy released during this collision would have been enormous, and since the proto-Earth prior to the instant of the collision would have already been quite hot from prior impacts and the much higher radioactivity back then, wouldn't the Moon forming collision have melted the entire crust of proto-Earth?
Bruce
Just as zero is not equal to infinity, everything coming from nothing is illogical.
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
Personal beliefs are fine here, so long as they don't deviate too far from the mainstream scientific consensus, and are allowed to yield to new evidence.BDanielMayfield wrote:Since we're declaring personal beliefs ... (made moderators nervous, I bet) ... I believe that the evidence for a major protoplanetary collision as a cause for our Moon's existence is compelling; therefore I'm compelled to believe that this collision did occur.
Real question: since the energy released during this collision would have been enormous, and since the proto-Earth prior to the instant of the collision would have already been quite hot from prior impacts and the much higher radioactivity back then, wouldn't the Moon forming collision have melted the entire crust of proto-Earth?
Bruce
To answer your real question, one would have to know what the proto-Earth was like before the collision, how much kinetic energy was converted into heat energy, and how that heat energy was transferred through what remained of the proto-Earth (after it molted shed some of its mass to help form the Moon). An enormous amount of energy is not guaranteed to be enormous enough.
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
This thread has really gotten tense
Re: APOD: Solar Flare from a Sharper Sun (2014 Nov 22)
Past, present or future?BMAONE23 wrote:This thread has really gotten tense
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.