Origin of Iron? (Earth, verse, science, Articles)

[Popeyesays]

In all truth the iron at the core of this planet has a heavenly source--the supernovae of stars, the same source as every other element above the we3ight of lithium.

Regards,
Scott

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

In all truth the iron at the core of this planet has a heavenly source--the supernovae of stars, the same source as every other element above the we3ight of lithium.

Regards,
Scott

this is the accepted model as in that model 'gravity' created all mass yet on earth in fussin reactors on the surface, with only weee little gravity, they make a whole slew of mass greater that lithium..... i'e' what is einsteinium?

What is accepted and what is true are quite different.

The core of the earth is nuclear. That's a truth most do not know.

and if you doubt; think about a big bucket of liquid, the heavy stuff falls to the bottom. Well which is heavier, iron or uranium? And if you have a wee little bit of u-235 in proximity what can happen?

So if tectonics is true, then we are a big furnace all by ourselves...

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

this is the accepted model as in that model 'gravity' created all mass yet on earth in fussin reactors on the surface, with only weee little gravity, they make a whole slew of mass greater that lithium..... i'e' what is einsteinium?

What is accepted and what is true are quite different.

The core of the earth is nuclear. That's a truth most do not know.

and if you doubt; think about a big bucket of liquid, the heavy stuff falls to the bottom. Well which is heavier, iron or uranium? And if you have a wee little bit of u-235 in proximity what can happen?

So if tectonics is true, then we are a big furnace all by ourselves...

Einsteinium is highly unstable and it may or may not have been produced naturally.

They haven't been able to actually create the next potentially stable element on the theoretical table of elements as yet.

Island of stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nova did an episode on The Island of Stability in the last few years.Geologically speaking the core of earth is liquid because of the pressure, rather than radioactively.

Regards,
Scott

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Einsteinium is highly unstable and it may or may not have been produced naturally.

How about a little read

Einsteinium does not occur naturally in any measurable quantities. The modern process of creating the element starts with the irradiation of plutonium-239 in a nuclear reactor for several years. The resulting plutonium-242 isotope (in the form of the compound plutonium(IV) oxide) is mixed with aluminium and formed into pellets. The pellets are then further irradiated for approximately one year in a nuclear reactor. Another four months of irradiation is required in a different reactor. The result is a mixture of californium and einsteinium, which can then be separated

Point is the information you have about how mass (chemical elements) come into form is a little off from what you are aware of. No big deal a little fun on the web and you can grow.

They haven't been able to actually create the next potentially stable element on the theoretical table of elements as yet.

that was not the area of discussion the comment made was every element past lithium was made in a star and the truth is

Nuclear transmutations
In nuclear reactions, a chemical element may be transmuted into another. Nuclear transmutations have been reported in many cold fusion experiments since 1992. Transmutations in such experiments would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; they would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process. At the same time, the lack of a satisfactory explanation cannot be used to dismiss experimental evidence

Nova did an episode on The Island of Stability in the last few years.Geologically speaking the core of earth is liquid because of the pressure, rather than radioactively.

Regards,
Scott

But the thread is 'origin of iron' and the material offered is to assist in overcoming some of the misque's in understanding.

Most of what people understand in how mass exists is a little off

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

How about a little read

Point is the information you have about how mass (chemical elements) come into form is a little off from what you are aware of. No big deal a little fun on the web and you can grow.

that was not the area of discussion the comment made was every element past lithium was made in a star and the truth is
But the thread is 'origin of iron' and the material offered is to assist in overcoming some of the misque's in understanding.

Most of what people understand in how mass exists is a little off

Originally Posted by Bishadi

How about a little read

Point is the information you have about how mass (chemical elements) come into form is a little off from what you are aware of. No big deal a little fun on the web and you can grow.

that was not the area of discussion the comment made was every element past lithium was made in a star and the truth is
But the thread is 'origin of iron' and the material offered is to assist in overcoming some of the misque's in understanding.

Most of what people understand in how mass exists is a little off

Every element up to iron was formed in early stars. Iron formation strangled those stars and they super novaed. The Super nova actually kicked off transmutation into heavier elements which then became available for the formation of the next generations of stars and planets. "Nature's Furnace" at work.

Tiny amounts of transmutation in reactor, "cold fusion" device or chemical beaker do not provide sufficient quantities of jelements to provide for the formation of stars and planets, do they?

In the bang quarks were released into the universe and as the density of the bang thinned those quarks were able to form subatomic particles, and hydrogen, helium and a sprinkle of lithium atoms. Those elements provided the mass to ignite the first stars as they coalesced.

Regards,
Scott

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Every element up to iron was formed in early stars. Iron formation strangled those stars and they super novaed. The Super nova actually kicked off transmutation into heavier elements which then became available for the formation of the next generations of stars and planets. "Nature's Furnace" at work.

Did I mention to you I am a science and physics nut? Have been since about 15 years old, for almost 27 years and if you really are interested in learning how things work maybe do a little homework in the math rather than simply the TV shows and news articles. Maybe read a little on how the description you suggest came about, then try again.

Tiny amounts of transmutation in reactor, "cold fusion" device or chemical beaker do not provide sufficient quantities of jelements to provide for the formation of stars and planets, do they?

That was not the reason for the tangent, it was to share with you that not all mass is created in stars as you claimed as fact.

So if Gravity is not the only method of 'creating' mass, then the whole form which you convey is 'less than' true!

It shares that what you believe is a little off what is true and then to maybe allow you to reason to learn rather than conform.

In the bang quarks were released into the universe and as the density of the bang thinned those quarks were able to form subatomic particles, and hydrogen, helium and a sprinkle of lithium atoms. Those elements provided the mass to ignite the first stars as they coalesced.

Regards,
Scott

which if you sprinkle a little integrity over the quacks that bang out substandard knowledge, maybe each could thin out the irresponsible representations.

Meaning, the material provided unequivocally shares the Virial Theorem used to create the representations you are posting are incorrect, period!

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Yeah, but iron was here long before people were, and the vast majority of it is sequestered at the centre of the Earth beyond our reach.
Make of that what you will.

Isn't it ironic? Doncha think?

[Popeyesays]

"That was not the reason for the tangent, it was to share with you that not all mass is created in stars as you claimed as fact.

So if Gravity is not the only method of 'creating' mass, then the whole form which you convey is 'less than' true!

It shares that what you believe is a little off what is true and then to maybe allow you to reason to learn rather than conform."

Go back and find where I said all MASS came from stars. I said the cauldron of stars formed heavier elements from lighter elements. Transmutation does not create mass from non-mass.

Mass exists without gravity.

Regards,
Scott