Posted on 10/18/2009 11:54:12 AM PDT by decimon
TORONTO, ON – According to a new study by geologists at the University of Toronto and the University of Maryland, the wealth of some minerals that lie in the rock beneath the Earth's surface may be extraterrestrial in origin.
"The extreme temperature at which the Earth's core formed more than four billion years ago would have completely stripped any precious metals from the rocky crust and deposited them in the core," says James Brenan of the Department of Geology at the University of Toronto and co-author of the study published in Nature Geoscience on October 18.
"So, the next question is why are there detectable, even mineable, concentrations of precious metals such as platinum and rhodium in the rock portion of the Earth today? Our results indicate that they could not have ended up there by any known internal process, and instead must have been added back, likely by a 'rain' of extraterrestrial debris, such as comets and meteorites."
Geologists have long speculated that four and a half billion years ago, the Earth was a cold mass of rock mixed with iron metal which was melted by the heat generated from the impact of massive planet-sized objects, allowing the iron to separate from the rock and form the Earth's core. Brenan and colleague William McDonough of the University of Maryland recreated the extreme pressure and temperature of this process, subjecting a similar mixture to temperatures above 2,000 degrees Celsius, and measured the composition of the resulting rock and iron.
Because the rock became void of the metal in the process, the scientists speculate that the same would have occurred when the Earth was formed, and that some sort of external source – such as a rain of extraterrestrial material – contributed to the presence of some precious metals in Earth's outer rocky portion today.
"The notion of extraterrestrial rain my also explain another mystery, which is how the rock portion of the Earth came to have hydrogen, carbon and phosphorous – the essential components for life, which were likely lost during Earth's violent beginning."
###
The research was funded with the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and a NASA Cosmochemistry grant.
MEDIA CONTACTS:
James M. Brenan Department of Geology University of Toronto 416-978-0281 brenan@geology.utoronto.ca
Sean Bettam Office of Communications, Faculty of Arts & Science University of Toronto 416-946-7950 s.bettam@utoronto.ca
Thanks for posting this article.
I must admit I’m puzzled by the seeming hostility of many posters to the scientists and science involved.
Earth First!
We’ll mine the other planets later.
That was the first thing that popped into my head as well.
They seemingly can't resist.
The Sudbury ring is an impact structure. Uncharacteristically, I took a quick look where there might be a file about it, and the hard drive had *nothing*. I’m a little shocked. ;’) In fact, I don’t remember seeing anything about the Manicougan lakes / crater either. I did have a folder regarding the Haughton Astrobleme (my personal favorite name for an Earthly impact structure). :’)
I don't think you are seeing "hostility". But rather a bunch of us strongly doubt the consensus view on the age of the earth and the process by which the earth formed.
This article does an excellent job of calling those consensus views "speculation".
Usually when we run into consensus views on "age of the earth", "age of the universe", "macro-evolution", "process of the earth forming" or "global warming", the views are not presented as "speculation" but rather as "fact" with the certainty of religious dogma (note the questioning of the underlying worldview in post 9).
Consequently, those articles do reap hostility because of the non-scientific arrogance in the way the consensus views are presented.
This article lacks that arrogance, but you are still seeing objections to the consensus view.
In fact Wendy1946's post 18 does an excellent job of pointing out a further inconsistency in the consensus view model. If the heavy minerals in the earth's crusts are from extraterrestial sources, and not from the earth's original formation, then you can't really date the earth by those minerals.
Aside from impact events, a number of the cosmic disasters of past ages have involved electrical discharges between our planet and another large or halfway large body and when those discharges involve Birkland currents, you have the possibility of heavy metals actually being formed up out of whatever material is around including pure air, from the Z-pinch effect associated with such currents. Again this totally annihilates the basic logic of isotope dating schemes.
Dan is right. It’s not hostility towards science.
That’s a typical accusation that occurs whenever someone disagrees with something, or points out flaws or errors in something.
The first that that the person is accused of is *hate* or *hostility*. You see it here on FR in regards to science and religion.
Questioning things is not hate or hostility. Challenging something is not hate or hostility.
Whatever happened to thinking for a change? Thinking outside the box? Is there something wrong with challenging existing presuppositions? How does anyone expect to learn anything if we just take in what we’re spoonfed and never go anywhere with it?
The only hostility that some may exhibit is when science is abused and misused as a weapon either for political gain or to destroy the foundations of our society, not against the pursuit of knowledge and use of it for the betterment of mankind’s lot.
Thanks Wendy.
Nowhere, i.e. you’d never hit a bat with a shotgun. Geese are a different story. The most perfect metal there could possibly be for waterfowl shot would be gold; half again denser than lead, totally inert, and not close to hard enough to present any danger to shotgun barrels. There’s a real possibility of plasma physics (Birkeland current and Z-pinch) devices some day making gold plentiful enough to use for shot shells.
Dan is right. It’s not hostility towards science.
That’s a typical accusation that occurs whenever someone disagrees with something, or points out flaws or errors in something.
The first that that the person is accused of is *hate* or *hostility*. You see it here on FR in regards to science and religion.
Questioning things is not hate or hostility. Challenging something is not hate or hostility.
Whatever happened to thinking for a change? Thinking outside the box? Is there something wrong with challenging existing presuppositions? How does anyone expect to learn anything if we just take in what we’re spoonfed and never go anywhere with it?
The only hostility that some may exhibit is when science is abused and misused as a weapon either for political gain or to destroy the foundations of our society, not against the pursuit of knowledge and use of it for the betterment of mankind’s lot.
It’s just how liberals operate.
Notice anyone that dares criticize the zerrhoid is a racist?
Jimmuh Cahtuh (and several others) saw to that.
Same thing from the evolutionists...what you’ll often also see is: “religious attacks on science” anytime someone dares question their cult.
Contrast this so-called “hostility” to how evolutionists typically react in this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2366646/posts
Liberals project alot. The stupefying hypocrisy of liberals never ever ceases to amaze.
Did the boloids ever go back to work or did stay they on strike?
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.