Metamorphic Gold

[vegasjames]

Jan 18, 2018 0:10:50 GMT -5 @shotgunner said:

I never ever make "personal attacks". If that is what you read, I can't help that, sorry. I suggested we were arguing vastly different perspectives of the same set of facts. One from a macro perspective and one from a microscopic perspective.

vegasjames I find you quite intelligent. I find you hard working and diligent. I find you persuasive. I would never attack your person. I never attack any person. Not my style. Oh, and you have good taste in dogs!

Regarding uranium?

I'll suggest that to have all those mines is easily explainable. Look at those mines as a strewn field pattern. A large fragile meteorite explodes and lands over that vast region with myriad landing points. Terrestrial chemistry changes the supernova remnants into what is mined today.

I always intend to offer new ideas and perspectives. Dogma sucks.

You wrote "1dave and I both are talking big picture. You are so caught up in minutiae".  So first of all you made the comment about me when I am not the topic. Secondly the last part of your comment is slighting me, which does make it a personal attack. You can explain things your way and I will explain things my way. And people should stay on topic instead of making it personal.

Thanks, Jax means the world to me. If you knew the whole story of how she came to me it was clearly meant to be. And she came at a time I really needed after my business partner and on and off girlfriend of 18 years passed away, which was very devastating to me.

The meteorite hypothesis goes back to my earlier point. If from meteorites where is all the nickel? A characteristic of virtually all meteorites is nickel. And nickel does not just evaporate. So again if the iron common on the Earth surface was all from meteorites then where is all the nickel, that is especially abundant in "iron" meteorites? Iron is very common and nickel is extremely rare on the Earth's surface. And again if all the iron sunk to the Earth's core when the Earth was molten then iron should be rare on the Earth's surface unless it was from meteorites, in which the iron would be accompanied by large amounts of nickel. Of course that is not the case so the meteorite hypothesis does not add up.

Uranium would have sunk to the core as well so falls in the same category as far as this goes as the iron.

Interestingly iron deposits are common with gold and copper deposits. And gold and copper can be deposited though hydrothermal processes deep in the Earth, which again leans to the idea that most of the iron is coming from below the Earth surface, not so much from space.

Something else to keep in mind is the minerals that come up from deep in the Earth. For example ecoglite that forms deep in the Earth and can be brought to the surface during certain events such as kimberlite and lamprorite eruptions. Ecoglite contains iron rich garnets. So this brings up the point that iron from meteorites clearly did not make it that deep in to the Earth after the Earth "cooled".  So where did the iron come from? Up from the core? Not likely. So again is it possible as I hypothesized earlier that the mixing of molten material during the cooling of the Earth simply trapped a lot of the heavier metals in the upper layers of the Earth?

Another possibility I can think of is the metals initially came up primarily from undersea volcanoes and vents and deposited on the sea floor like the manganese nodules that have been found on the sea floor. Plate tectonics though is constantly pushing land masses upward out of the ocean. For example if you look at the mountains in California, Nevada, the Rockies, etc, you will notice they tend to run the same direction. I was watching a program a while back on the Earth and they explained these mountains came to be initially from being forced upward out of the ocean in basically what can be described as "waves'. So a mountain range is formed and continues to get pushed along then another mountain range gets pushed up and the cycle continues.

Then as I mentioned previously faults can thrust lower levels of these mountains upward putting the layers of metals or ore veins above what was the previously 'ground level".  One of these days maybe I will photograph some of the mountains and faults in the Goodsprings District near here.  Many of the mountains out there have been thrust upward and some nearly completely on their side.  This brought a lot of these metal ores up above the prior ground level, which is one of the major reasons so many of the mines out there are along faults near the tops of the mountains, which were once well below what would be considered ground level.

Another thing to keep in mind is how much energy did it take to push those mountains up on their side?  Of course this is a mind blowing amount of energy.  Now consider this. The core of the Earth is molten and a good portion of the remaining Earth under the crust is also molten, and thus liquid. More precisely a thick liquid that gets more viscous as it nears the crust. As I mentioned earlier molten fluids are in a state of motion, and thus mixing. The more viscous a fluid becomes the better it can suspend heavier elements.  Now another physics principle comes in to play called hydraulics.  Since fluids are not compressible the amount of pressure applied to an area of liquid gets evenly distributed throughout the fluid.  For those not sure what I am talking about look up the principle of a hydraulic lift. Anyway, if this pressure is then focused upon one area the pressure is magnified from the pressure of point A times the area of the fluid all focusing on point B. So if there was a severe shock wave on this molten fluid, especially sufficient to move a whole mountain and this pressure was therefore amplified on a weak spot in the Earth's crust theoretically that amount of pressure could easily force molten magma with a mix of these heavier metals up through the Earth's crust.  Then supercritical water can dissolve these metals rising up even further then depositing as shallower levels as pressure drops and the water cools. So it very possible that metals are coming up from molten magma from below the Earth's crust considering the incomprehensible amount of hydraulic pressures that would occur beneath the crust.

[vegasjames]

Jan 18, 2018 9:53:33 GMT -5 1dave said:

I agree with most of what you are saying, but -

The meteorite hypothesis goes back to my earlier point. If from meteorites where is all the nickel? A characteristic of virtually all meteorites is nickel. And nickel does not just evaporate. So again if the iron common on the Earth surface was all from meteorites then where is all the nickel, that is especially abundant in "iron" meteorites? Iron is very common and nickel is extremely rare on the Earth's surface. And again if all the iron sunk to the Earth's core when the Earth was molten then iron should be rare on the Earth's surface unless it was from meteorites, in which the iron would be accompanied by large amounts of nickel. Of course that is not the case so the meteorite hypothesis does not add up.

Read more: forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/post/new/81802#ixzz54XqEXFSH

When scientists were finally forced to accept Chicxulub and the 65 Ma layer of iridium, nearly all of them began spouting "all space rocks have a lot of IRIDIUM !"

That of course is nonsense. IF, as quoted above, the solar system is composed of material from 10 different supernovas, most leftover material is unique in its elements.

The nature of the solar material changes as asteroids collide creating new debris field, and Sol enters different parts of the Milky Way Galaxy. Comets shed new material with each passing, so meteorites for while are composed of whatever was in that comet.

The solar medium is constantly changing in composition.

Interestingly iron deposits are common with gold and copper deposits. And gold and copper can be deposited though hydrothermal processes deep in the Earth, which again leans to the idea that most of the iron is coming from below the Earth surface, not so much from space.

Read more: forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/post/new/81802#ixzz54XvK4PH7

Iron is the fourth most common element found in the earth's crust, so I don't understand your comment.

I doubt the first earth elements remained elements for long. Some of them must have quickly become minerals, changing their density - AND their location in the gravitational layers of the earth.

Volcanoes only eject material from the lower portion of the crust - mostly subducted seafloor with its burden of eroded rocks like the granite, iron, gold and mercury washing down in the rivers.

Commenting on your final statement

Another thing to keep in mind is how much energy did it take to push those mountains up on their side? Of course this is a mind blowing amount of energy.

Read more: forum.rocktumblinghobby.com/post/new/81802#ixzz54Y0FJprZ

I believe the initiating energy came from huge impacts.

The first shattered the crust into continents, created the first ocean and the moon.

After continental collisions (the energy pushing the first mountains on their side), The second huge impact initiated the breakup of Rodinia.

The third initiated the breakup of Pangea, the flood volcanics of the Siberian traps, and the greatest extinction of earth history.

I have yet to see any information to dissuade me that everywhere there is a huge concentration of normally low concentrations of elements that they came from an impact event.

Sudbury (nowhere near the 2nd largest crater on earth) is an outstanding example of a "volcano" which finally was admitted to being an impact crater.

What scientists were claiming all meteorites contained a lot of iridium?  I have never heard that claim ever and meteorite analysis was going only long before the discovery of the KT layer so compositions of many meteorites were already known and thus known not be loaded with iridium.

My point with the iron is that it is common with hydrothermal deposits. If the Earth had already "cooled" forming a crust then any iron from meteorites would not have sunk through a solid crust to reach those deposits. So the iron likely came up with the copper and gold also dissolved in the water. This would also explain the lack of nickel in the iron deposits, which should have been present in high concentrations if deposited by meteorites. So this goes back to if all the iron sunk to the core when the Earth was molten then how come there is so much iron in the crust? And again it does not appear to have come from meteorites. So the only other answer I see off hand is the iron was deposited from below.

More evidence to this can be seen in the iron content of many basalts. Around here much of our basalt is magnetic due to the high iron content. These basalts are not meteorites, even though there are basaltic meteorites. So most of the iron found here is from below the surface, not from meteorites. And that again goes back to the question of how did the iron get there if all the iron sunk to the core when the Earth was molten. That is why I presented several hypotheses on how this can happen.

As for volcanoes only ejecting material from the lower crust how do we know that?  And again if that is the case how do you explain all the iron in the crust, which you also admit is so abundant, when all the iron supposedly sunk to the core when the Earth was molten? The iron is not just magically appearing. So where did it come from?  I gave one possible explanation with the hydraulic principles that can be involved. This article kind of goes in to that:

www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/magma/

"How Magma Forms

Earth is divided into three general layers. The core is the superheated center, the mantle is the thick, middle layer, and the crust is the top layer on which we live.

Magma originates in the lower part of the Earth’s crust and in the upper portion of the mantle. Most of the mantle and crust are solid, so the presence of magma is crucial to understanding the geology and morphology of the mantle.

Differences in temperature, pressure, and structural formations in the mantle and crust cause magma to form in different ways.

Decompression Melting
Decompression melting involves the upward movement of Earth's mostly-solid mantle. This hot material rises to an area of lower pressure through the process of convection. Areas of lower pressure always have a lower melting point than areas of high pressure. This reduction in overlying pressure, or decompression, enables the mantle rock to melt and form magma.

Decompression melting often occurs at divergent boundaries, where tectonic plates separate. The rifting movement causes the buoyant magma below to rise and fill the space of lower pressure. The rock then cools into new crust.

Decompression melting also occurs at mantle plumes, columns of hot rock that rise from Earth’s high-pressure core to its lower-pressure crust. When located beneath the ocean, these plumes, also known as hot spots, push magma onto the seafloor. These volcanic mounds can grow into volcanic islands over millions of years of activity."

"Magma Escape Routes

Magma leaves the confines of the upper mantle and crust in two major ways: as an intrusion or as an extrusion. An intrusion can form features such as dikes and xenoliths. An extrusion could include lava and volcanic rock."

They also make mention that most magma is it the mantel, not the crust.

As for the impact hypothesis causing these mountains to lift that way I totally disagree for several reasons.  First of all there is no large impact craters in that area. And as arid as we are there is little erosion here so an impact crater would be very obvious.

Secondly, not all the mountains in the area are that way. According to your hypothesis the pressure wave that would have been created would have affected all the mountains in that way.

Third, this is a very earthquake prone area and fault lines are clearly visible in many of these mountains and even in the mines themselves showing the mountains were lifted by earthquake activity.

And finally you brought up Sudsbury, which I am very familiar with being that I heavy in to meteorite collecting.  Sudsbury happens to be a major nickel mining operation as well as the nickel was deposited by the meteorite impact. This goes back to my earlier point I brought up several times that if meteorites were involved in the presence of all these metals, and in this case even the movement of these mountains, then there would be an abundance of nickel present in these areas as with Sudsbury. That is not the case though. Nickel is extremely rare on the Earth's surface.  Nickel is found in abundance in virtually all meteorites. Especially in "iron" meteorites, which is an important distinction.  Stone meteorites are more fragile and break up much more easily coming through the atmosphere compared to "iron" meteorites. Thus a stone meteor would likely break up so bad coming in that it would be next to impossible for it to cause such as catastrophic event like an iron meteor would.  In fact, look up the size of the various meteorites found. What do they all have in common?  Out of the largest meteorites found the stone meteorites tend to be rather small.  The largest I have ever heard of was around 26 pounds.  Compare that to the largest of the "iron meteorites" such a the Old Woman meteorite or better yet the Hoba meteorite which weighs 66 tons.  Point is that such an impact event that you are hypothesizing would require a large "iron" meteorite, which contains significantly more nickel than stone meteorites. So again, if such an event occurred we would see very large quantities of nickel present as is the case with Sudsbury, yet this is not the case.

[vegasjames]

Jan 18, 2018 18:36:57 GMT -5 1dave said:

We are talking past each other.

Not really. I am just looking for evidence of claims like what scientists claimed all meteorites are high in iridium and if these metals are from meteorite impacts where is all the nickel that would be present?

[vegasjames]

Jan 18, 2018 19:48:52 GMT -5 1dave said:

I was alive at the time and in communicating with Luis and his son Walter Alvarez. Those stupid comments were everywhere.

I just did a brief search and found one remaining comment:

www.geologyforinvestors.com/7-rarest-metals-which-you-never-heard-of/

As iridium is rare on earth, but much more abundant elsewhere in the universe, the wide-spread, iridium-rich clay is evidence of the pulverisation of something very large of extra-terrestrial origin. Iridium anomalies have since been identified in a number of meteor impact sites.

The idea stimulated a lot of talk about mining the asteroids.

This is an article by a geologist who nowhere in the article claimed all meteorites are high in iridium, which is one of the claims I asked for evidence of.

[vegasjames]

Jan 19, 2018 9:39:31 GMT -5 1dave said:

Jan 18, 2018 22:42:46 GMT -5 vegasjames said:

This is an article by a geologist who nowhere in the article claimed all meteorites are high in iridium, which is one of the claims I asked for evidence of.

What make you think you have a nose on your face or fingers on your hands? This has become too stupid for me to continue.

It's stupid to ask for evidence of one's claims? OK!!!!!