question about the elements

[skaught]

I'm reading a book (Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku). Theres a chapter that talks about this and that and all kinds of things. but one thing that popped out to me was it seems to say that all elements higher than Iron were formed in the cores of stars. Is this accurate?

[OilIsMastery]

So they claim. It's accuracy is unknown and should be questioned.

[skaught]

So basically all the elements we find on earth that are below iron could very well have formed on earth. but everything above iron had to come from earths early creation?

[OilIsMastery]

So basically all the elements we find on earth that are below iron could very well have formed on earth.
Correct.

In the context of Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST the proton-neutron pair of the atomic nucleus, with MeV binding energies, represents the equilibrium, maximum tension of space, and the eV range electron cloud, the looser 'plasma' state where electrons accelerate from rest to light speed. Both fusion and fission involve the transformation of a smaller or bigger nucleus, to a more stable bigger or smaller one, respectively, and both converge to the max of ~8.8 MeV per nucleon of Fe56. These two spontaneously occurring processes are non-entropic, i.e., the products of both have higher nuclear binding energy/frequency as per E=hf. In fact, fusion and fission is nothing else than multiplication and division of a quantity by the same number, i.e., proportionality principle. Both involve a cyclic and linear extension component that increases frequency with time. Any excess energy input transforms an unpaired standing wave-energy into a paired standing wave-matter, or excess mass. So, elements form in the Earth's inner core, the equivalent of the atomic nucleus; accelerate from static to vmax in the 'plasma' outer core, and are emplaced atom-by-atom and in solid state around it, forming the mantle. Depending on structural constraints form compounds, crystals, minerals and rocks, in three phases: 1. The first pre-Fe, or pre-U phase, started long before 4.6 b.y.a. when H2, Li7, Be9, B11, He4, and N14, with nuclear binding from ~1.1 to ~7.5 MeV, formed. The first rocks on Earth, mostly as big monocrystals, were the Li, Be, B rich proto-pegmatites. 2. The second pre-Fe, or meta-U, phase starts ~4.6 b.y.a. and sets the radioactive decay clock with the ~7.6 MeV of U238 on the fission side, and the ~7.7 MeV of C12 on the fusion side. U and C entered into the crystalline structure of proto-pegmatites, thus forming the proto-kerogen, and CH4, the parent molecule of hydrocarbons. As the constant extension of space and the consequent frequency increase provided the higher binding energies per nucleon, elements like O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, K, and Ca, through fusion, and Th and Cs through fission, and minerals like spodumene, feldspar and quartz formed and entered into the crystalline structure of proto-kerogen and proto-pegmatites; gradually transforming them into kerogen and pegmatites, and the pegmatites into granites. So ~200 m.y.a. an all encompassing pegmatitic/granitic crust covered the surface of a smaller, ~60% its present radius, Earth. 3. The meta-Fe phase started ~200 m.y.a. when the 8.8 MeV of Fe56 was provided. The emplacement of Fe into the structure of preexisting minerals was associated with radiant heat due to the resonance of 'excess' electrons in microcracks, close to the Earth's surface; causing the pyrolysis of kerogen into coal, oil and gas, and the baking of kaolinite into shale. Minerals, like micas, olivine and pyroxene were formed, and of them rocks, first the BIFs and later diorite and gabbro, and the Earth grew to its present size.

Tassos, S.T., Element, Mineral and Rock Formation in the Context of Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST (http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284024.html), International Geological Congress Oslo, Aug 2008

but everything above iron had to come from earths early creation?
So they claim.

[skaught]

You seem to be skeptical of this. Why is that?

[OilIsMastery]

You seem to be skeptical of this. Why is that?
Because I don't know. If you don't know, you should be skeptical too.

[skaught]

I have a feeling there is more to it than that. but if you say so...

[skaught]

So why is it that higher elements cannot form on earth?

[OilIsMastery]

I have a feeling there is more to it than that. but if you say so...

So why is it that higher elements cannot form on earth?
Well they say gold can only be formed when neutron stars collide because of the excessive binding energy required to form gold. I don't believe in neutron stars.

"According to electric star theory, neutron stars belong in the same category with invisible pink unicorns." -- Stephen Smith, physicist, November 2008

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/081126magnetic.htm

[D H]

Do not believe a word from OIM.

Practically none of the elements on the Earth formed on the Earth. The only exception are those elements that formed from radioactive decay of even more massive elements. For example, uranium 238 decays into lead 206 through a series of 14 intermediate elements.

Except for these decay products, all elements heavier than lithium (not just iron) were produced in stars. Stars can produce elements up to iron by way of fusion (lighter stars stop short of producing iron). Since fusion of iron requires more energy than is produced, stellar nucleosynthesis stops once a star has converted its core to iron. Without heat being produced, the star collapses. This collapse fuels a dramatic explosion called a supernova. The supernova provides the energy needed to make more massive elements.

Bottom line: All but the very lightest of elements are either formed in stars or are the decay products of elements formed in stars. All of the heavier elements are either formed in supernovae or are the products of elements formed in supernovae.

[OilIsMastery]

Do not believe a word from OIM.

Practically none of the elements on the Earth formed on the Earth.
If that's true, how come the iron-rich rocks, like basalt and gabbro, are on the bottom and the iron-poor rocks, like granites, are on the top, when it is well known that the iron-rich rocks were the last to form?

[skaught]

So I am gathering, from my book and this conversation, that it takes bigger and bigger stars to form higher and higher elements?

[OilIsMastery]

So I am gathering, from my book and this conversation, that it takes bigger and bigger stars to form higher and higher elements?
So they claim.

[skaught]

So is that why higher and higher elements are more and more rare?

[OilIsMastery]

So is that why higher and higher elements are more and more rare?
Who says anything in the universe is rare? They found a carbon star that is a 10 billion trillion trillion carat diamond: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3492919.stm

[James R]

So basically all the elements we find on earth that are below iron could very well have formed on earth.

Correct.

OIM's statement is a lie.

[skaught]

OIM's statement is a lie.

Which one?

[OilIsMastery]

OIM's statement is a lie.
Why is that?

[James R]

OIM:

You are warned to stop trolling this thread, or you may be banned.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:

You are warned to stop trolling this thread, or you may be banned.
How am I trolling?

[MetaKron]

OIM's statement is a lie.

It may be inaccurate but he provided support from a scientific journal, so it is not a lie.

[OilIsMastery]

It may be inaccurate but he provided support from a scientific journal, so it is not a lie.
Thank you for correcting him. Also note that James has not provided any support for his beliefs from any scientific journals.

[MetaKron]

Thank you for correcting him.

You are very welcome. You were behaving appropriately and you supported your statement. I'm not sure that I believe your statement but that's life. I lean towards believing that there is a possibility, but I just don't know and it's a fascinating thought.

[OilIsMastery]

You are very welcome. You were behaving appropriately and you supported your statement. I'm not sure that I believe your statement but that's life. I lean towards believing that there is a possibility, but I just don't know and it's a fascinating thought.
I like you. Nice to meet you...:D

[James R]

You are warned to stop trolling this thread, or you may be banned.

How am I trolling?

Wondering how far you could push it before attracting a ban?

This is how far.

Take a day off and think about it.

[MetaKron]

James, you really need a day off yourself. For crying out loud.

[skaught]

.... so... guess I'll try this again later...

[James R]

I invite anybody who is thinking of jumping on OIM's defence bandwagon to review all of his posts over the past 2 days (and longer if you can bear it).

MetaKron: if you wish to join OIM in solidarity, I will be happy to oblige you.

[James R]

The correct and accurate answer to your question, skaught, is the one given in post #10.

I am sorry your thread was effectively destroyed by OIM and his minion.

[MetaKron]

I invite anybody who is thinking of jumping on OIM's defence bandwagon to review all of his posts over the past 2 days (and longer if you can bear it).

MetaKron: if you wish to join OIM in solidarity, I will be happy to oblige you.

So you are threatening me for coming to the defense of someone who you are abusing?

In this thread you did not charge OIM with anything that he actually did wrong. His behavior was reasonable and the answer that he gave was supported properly. This cannot be added to any past offenses if you intend to be reasonable or have any integrity. I saw another thread that you trolled the same way and you're the one who is messing up, not OIM.

[James R]

MetaKron:

Obviously you have forgotten that I told you I am no longer engaging you in debate because you are barking mad.

[MetaKron]

MetaKron:

Obviously you have forgotten that I told you I am no longer engaging you in debate because you are barking mad.

What part of that makes you sound like a responsible user of this forum?

[MetaKron]

Also, you told me that I was barking mad because I didn't agree with your views on animal rights. That tells me where you are really coming from.

[skaught]

I am sorry your thread was effectively destroyed by OIM and his minion.

No worries james! I'll try again later, ans probably have a host more questions then. In the meantime, feel free to lock this.

[James R]

Also, you told me that I was barking mad because I didn't agree with your views on animal rights.

This is a lie.

[James R]

MetaKron decided to join OIM in his crusade against biased moderators. 1 day ban.

[D H]

So is that why higher and higher elements are more and more rare?
The universe started with about 75% hydrogen (1H), 25% helium (4He), plus trace amounts of deuterium, helium-3, and lithium. Each generation of stars converts some of their mass into heavier elements. Light stars primarily convert hydrogen to helium. Midsize stars, up to carbon. Carbon acts as a bottleneck. Even heavier stars can proceed beyond this bottleneck and produce elements as heavy as iron by fusion. Fusion stops at iron. Larger elements are produced by neutron capture, some in heavy third generation stars and some in supernovae. Producing ever larger elements requires ever more neutron captures.

This last item is important. Not all of the iron in a star absorbs neutrons. The rest remains stable iron. The neutron absorption produces unstable isotopes of iron which decay via beta decay to elements further on down the period table. Some of these elements absorb neutrons, and so on. Each step up the ladder proceeds with a smaller population. There's less material to work with each step, so the stuff that requires a longer sequence of neutron captures + beta decays (e.g., uranium) will naturally be less prevalent than the stuff that only requires a few steps up the ladder.

[D H]

It may be inaccurate but he provided support from a scientific journal, so it is not a lie.
No, he provided support from a technical conference (i.e., not a journal) that held a session for "non-conventional concepts" (a nice way to put it). Some conferences do just that on the off-chance that there just might be a jewel hiding amidst all the excrement typically presented in such sessions. The disadvantage of holding such sessions is that they appear to give those who crack pottery some credence. The disadvantage of not holding such sessions is that the science might get stuck in a rut. It's a bit like voting: All alternatives stink.

OIM picked up a pile of excrement. The expanding Earth theory has no credence whatsoever.

[skaught]

What is the expanding earth theory all about?

[D H]

What is the expanding earth theory all about?
It's a complete crock. You can see for yourself. See this debate (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86898) and follow the links in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2094171#post2094171).

[skaught]

It's a complete crock. You can see for yourself. See this debate (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86898) and follow the links in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2094171#post2094171).

Gah, I don't care enough. Sounds like crackpottery. But thanks for the info.

[D H]

Glad we have that settled. Back on topic, are you satisfied with the answers to your original question?

[skaught]

Pretty much! I have more questions, but may start new threads for them.