Big bang and planetary differentiation (split from Relation of meteorite types and source material ? [astronomy])

[Ni Mimi.]

On 7/19/2022 at 2:34 PM, mistermack said:

But the cloud that eventually formed the solar system will have had a long history. If it has metals etc, then it will have been involved in a supernova or neutron star collision, or a long history of both. Maybe the star that went supernova had their own planets, that were blown to bits in the explosion. That would leave a mixture of meteorites floating around, some from a core, others from a crust. 

Of the above, doesn’t that Supernova process then mean a _{process that occurred after or within the context of the Big Bang?}

_{If so, after the said explosion, the elements that occurred, are they defined within the shell, as it were, that they occurred in or within the mother, so to speak, Big Bang’s?}

_{That is, at what point does the classification begin?}

_{And, Swansont, at what point do you think the differentiation does begin or end?}

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, Ni Mimi. said:

Of the above, doesn’t that Supernova process then mean a process that occurred after or within the context of the Big Bang?

No. A Supernova is the explosive end of a Star's life. So you first need hydrogen formation, before the first stars formed. Then the star needs to form from a cloud of hydrogen, and burn till the fuel runs down, and only then can the star collapse in a Supernova event. The biggest stars still need a few million years to burn out, before they go Supernova. Smaller stars take longer still. So it's all taking place after what is generally viewed as the big bang event. 

You need to bear in mind that a few million years is nothing, in terms of the age of the Universe, which is about 14,000 million years old, so the process of Supernova building and detonating will have happened hundreds or thousands of times, leading up to the elements we are looking at now. 

[Ni Mimi.]

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

No. A Supernova is the explosive end of a Star's life. So you first need hydrogen formation, before the first stars formed. Then the star needs to form from a cloud of hydrogen, and burn till the fuel runs down, and only then can the star collapse in a Supernova event. The biggest stars still need a few million years to burn out, before they go Supernova. Smaller stars take longer still. So it's all taking place after what is generally viewed as the big bang event. 

You need to bear in mind that a few million years is nothing, in terms of the age of the Universe, which is about 14,000 million years old, so the process of Supernova building and detonating will have happened hundreds or thousands of times, leading up to the elements we are looking at now. 

Mistermack, so, since the Big Band predates all, how does what occurs in the Supernova process stand in relation to the Big Bang; putting it another way, the Big Bang’s the Main Routine while the Supernova’s a SubRoutine.

Can the SubRoutine’s process violate in any way, the Main’s Routine?

[swansont]

23 hours ago, Ni Mimi. said:

And, Swansont, at what point do you think the differentiation does begin or end?

You need a way for the various elements to move toward the center of the body and displace others. Being hot enough to be pliable, if not actually molten, on the interior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation

[MigL]

There seems to be some confusion about the 'relation' of supernovae and the Big Bang event.
There is none.

The Big Bang produced about 3/4 Hydrogen, 1/4 helium and traces of Lithium and other light elements.
This is what formed the first stars.

Stars, during their lifetimes, produce some heavier elements, up to Iron, during successive higher temperature core fusion processes.
Supernova explosions can actually supply enough energy to produce some even heavier elements, but most are produced when the end product of nova/supernova explosions, neutron stars, collide.

Newer stars are 'seeded' with these heavier elements.
Our Sun, which ignited about 5 billion years ago, is one such star, and our rocky/metallic planets are a result of the metal rich gas that went into the formation of our Solar System.

[Ni Mimi.]

On 7/24/2022 at 4:11 PM, swansont said:

You need a way for the various elements to move toward the center of the body and displace others. Being hot enough to be pliable, if not actually molten, on the interior.

So, of, ”You need a way for the various elements to move toward the center of the body and displace others,” can’t it be inferred that the essence of this correlative process, across the board, underpins all processes even on the grand scale?

That is, in this displacements which can be deemed as being at the heart of a differential event, do energy transformations occur; for instance, heat’s converted to cold?

On 7/24/2022 at 4:43 PM, MigL said:

There seems to be some confusion about the 'relation' of supernovae and the Big Bang event.
There is none.

The Big Bang produced about 3/4 Hydrogen, 1/4 helium and traces of Lithium and other light elements.
This is what formed the first stars.

Stars, during their lifetimes, produce some heavier elements, up to Iron, during successive higher temperature core fusion processes.
Supernova explosions can actually supply enough energy to produce some even heavier elements, but most are produced when the end product of nova/supernova explosions, neutron stars, collide.

Newer stars are 'seeded' with these heavier elements.
Our Sun, which ignited about 5 billion years ago, is one such star, and our rocky/metallic planets are a result of the metal rich gas that went into the formation of our Solar System.

If the above’s in connection with my statement, I am not saying the Big Bang and the Supernova events’re one the same thing – I did say that the Big Bang predates all.

When I made to reference to them, it was in relation to their association.

Thanks all the same.

[exchemist]

17 minutes ago, Ni Mimi. said:

So, of, ”You need a way for the various elements to move toward the center of the body and displace others,” can’t it be inferred that the essence of this correlative process, across the board, underpins all processes even on the grand scale?

That is, in this displacements which can be deemed as being at the heart of a differential event, do energy transformations occur; for instance, heat’s converted to cold?

If the above’s in connection with my statement, I am not saying the Big Bang and the Supernova events’re one the same thing – I did say that the Big Bang predates all.

When I made to reference to them, it was in relation to their association.

Thanks all the same.

No you can't infer that. The process of differentiation relies on difference in density, which only makes denser objects sink, relative to lighter ones, in the presence of gravity and the absence of other factors that would counteract this.

As for energy transformations, these can occur, since phase changes will take place at some point, which absorb or release Latent Heat. In fact there is a hypothesis that one source of heat in the interior of the Earth is due to phase changes which progressively release heat and thus slow down the rate of cooling.  When Latent Heat is released or absorbed, there is an interconversion between internal kinetic energy of atoms and molecules and the energy of chemical bonds.

However heat being converted to cold makes no sense. "Cold" is just a relative absence of heat. 

[Ni Mimi.]

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No you can't infer that. The process of differentiation relies on difference in density, which only makes denser objects sink, relative to lighter ones, in the presence of gravity and the absence of other factors that would counteract this.

As for energy transformations, these can occur, since phase changes will take place at some point, which absorb or release Latent Heat. In fact there is a hypothesis that one source of heat in the interior of the Earth is due to phase changes which progressively release heat and thus slow down the rate of cooling.  When Latent Heat is released or absorbed, there is an interconversion between internal kinetic energy of atoms and molecules and the energy of chemical bonds.

However heat being converted to cold makes no sense. "Cold" is just a relative absence of heat. 

Thank you for that: in the context of Calculus how would you explain differentiation?

[studiot]

42 minutes ago, Ni Mimi. said:

Thank you for that: in the context of Calculus how would you explain differentiation?

 

That's a good way to conduct a discussion. +

 

Differentiation in the materials sense has  almost nothing to do with calculus.

In a materials sense (as being used here) it means a physical 'separating out' of different physical or chemical constituents, phases, mechanical grading of grain size, and all similar processes.

Other technical disciplines such as medicine have yet other uses, doctors consider a 'differential diagnosis' which is a listing of (all) possible causes of a patient's symptoms.

Mechanical engineer's refer to the 'differential' in a vehicle which is  mechanical gearbox that allows various wheels to turn at different speeds when driven by a common drive shaft.

The differential calculus is a mathematical technique that allows calculation of various important properties of all these systems.

 

Does this help ?

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ni Mimi. said:

So, of, ”You need a way for the various elements to move toward the center of the body and displace others,” can’t it be inferred that the essence of this correlative process, across the board, underpins all processes even on the grand scale?

If you have a solid material, how do the atoms move to result in differentiation? It's possible if the material is molten, and perhaps if it's able to undergo plastic deformation. Otherwise they just don't move all that much.

 

1 hour ago, Ni Mimi. said:

That is, in this displacements which can be deemed as being at the heart of a differential event, do energy transformations occur; for instance, heat’s converted to cold?

Heat isn't converted to cold. Heat is energy transfer due to a temperature difference. Cold is a concept of not having a high temperature, but it's not a thermodynamic parameter.

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Ni Mimi. said:

Thank you for that: in the context of Calculus how would you explain differentiation?

I won't. The thread is discussing the separation of mixtures of materials into different layers, in the early planets etc. It was actually you that used the term "differential" in this context, in an earlier post.  Don't play games by switching to an unrelated context. If you want to know why differential calculus is so named, start a thread on it. 

 

[SergUpstart]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

In a materials sense (as being used here) it means a physical 'separating out' of different physical or chemical constituents, phases, mechanical grading of grain size, and all similar processes.

Probably by the differentiation of matter he meant not the separation of materials, but the formation of different particles. Just as in the process of growth of a biological organism, cell differentiation occurs (the appearance of an increasing number of specialized cells).

[Ni Mimi.]

On 7/26/2022 at 2:14 PM, exchemist said:

I won't. The thread is discussing the separation of mixtures of materials into different layers, in the early planets etc. It was actually you that used the term "differential" in this context, in an earlier post.  Don't play games by switching to an unrelated context. If you want to know why differential calculus is so named, start a thread on it. 

My apologies if I gave you the wrong impression – thought I was within the parameters of the discussion.

My intention was, since differentiation essentially signifies a rate of change, this rate of change, to what extent does it impact on systems considering that ‘A’ will be different at point B. That is to serve as illustration, Siamese Twins at the end of the day’re particular in distinct ways.

On 7/26/2022 at 12:37 PM, exchemist said:

In fact there is a hypothesis that one source of heat in the interior of the Earth is due to phase changes which progressively release heat and thus slow down the rate of cooling.

Of, “In fact there is a hypothesis that one source of heat in the interior of the Earth is due to phase changes which progressively release heat and thus slow down the rate of cooling,” can it thus be deemed that volcanic activity served as retrothrusters in terms of getting the Earth to cool down, in the process of its coming to be?

On 7/26/2022 at 1:12 PM, studiot said:

Differentiation in the materials sense has  almost nothing to do with calculus.

In a materials sense (as being used here) it means a physical 'separating out' of different physical or chemical constituents, phases, mechanical grading of grain size, and all similar processes.

Other technical disciplines such as medicine have yet other uses, doctors consider a 'differential diagnosis' which is a listing of (all) possible causes of a patient's symptoms.

Mechanical engineer's refer to the 'differential' in a vehicle which is  mechanical gearbox that allows various wheels to turn at different speeds when driven by a common drive shaft.

The differential calculus is a mathematical technique that allows calculation of various important properties of all these systems.

 

Does this help ?

Kudos.

[exchemist]

26 minutes ago, Ni Mimi. said:

My apologies if I gave you the wrong impression – thought I was within the parameters of the discussion.

My intention was, since differentiation essentially signifies a rate of change, this rate of change, to what extent does it impact on systems considering that ‘A’ will be different at point B. That is to serve as illustration, Siamese Twins at the end of the day’re particular in distinct ways.

Of, “In fact there is a hypothesis that one source of heat in the interior of the Earth is due to phase changes which progressively release heat and thus slow down the rate of cooling,” can it thus be deemed that volcanic activity served as retrothrusters in terms of getting the Earth to cool down, in the process of its coming to be?

Kudos.

I vill not buy zees tobacconist, it eez scratched. 

[Ni Mimi.]

20 hours ago, exchemist said:

I vill not buy zees tobacconist, it eez scratched. 

I don’t know who you are; actually don’t care.

In your response yesterday, I found that you’d said I stop playing games – very unbecoming language! Do you think I came here to play?

In this forum, people’re in school with the exception being that everyone’s a student just as they’re teachers.

The inference here’s that in learning, one makes mistakes because to the extent that we’re defined by our limitations, then is our scope of perception equally limited.

Accordingly so, in our limitations’re we bound to make errors; and by making errors, do we stand to be corrected since no one’s here who emerged from their mother’s embryo fully knowledgeable, perfect. If that were so, no one would be here.

We wouldn’t be exchanging ideas because, then, everyone, fully knowing, wouldn’t be in need of answers as they wouldn’t be having questions. If one has a problem understanding what the other’s saying, one only needs to simply ask for more clarification because, then again, not everybody here’s totally fluent in English; they’ve other tongues as their primary source of communication.

The long and short of it’s that we should be accommodating.

So, I don’t know what you’re doing here if you can reduce yourself to calling others names.

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, Ni Mimi. said:

I don’t know who you are; actually don’t care.

In your response yesterday, I found that you’d said I stop playing games – very unbecoming language! Do you think I came here to play?

In this forum, people’re in school with the exception being that everyone’s a student just as they’re teachers.

The inference here’s that in learning, one makes mistakes because to the extent that we’re defined by our limitations, then is our scope of perception equally limited.

Accordingly so, in our limitations’re we bound to make errors; and by making errors, do we stand to be corrected since no one’s here who emerged from their mother’s embryo fully knowledgeable, perfect. If that were so, no one would be here.

We wouldn’t be exchanging ideas because, then, everyone, fully knowing, wouldn’t be in need of answers as they wouldn’t be having questions. If one has a problem understanding what the other’s saying, one only needs to simply ask for more clarification because, then again, not everybody here’s totally fluent in English; they’ve other tongues as their primary source of communication.

The long and short of it’s that we should be accommodating.

So, I don’t know what you’re doing here if you can reduce yourself to calling others names.

Then don't talk gibberish and stick to the topic. What the hell have Siamese twins got to do with either rates of change or the differentiation of planetary bodies? And what the hell do you mean by volcanoes as "retrothrusters"? We're not talking bloody Buck Rogers. 

Get a grip of your thoughts, for Christ's sake, and stop wasting people's time with this nonsense. 

[Ni Mimi.]

In order for a teacher to pass their message, they mustn’t shout at their students nor mustn’t they shout down their students.

The above situations only instills fear in students such that were there ones who had questions that they wanted to ask, owing to the hostile, belligerent attitude of the teacher, instead do end up cringing in fear, unable to rise up and pose their problems in the quest for possible solutions.

That is, the foregoing only fosters dolts.

This school ought to nurture creativity by allowing others to express themselves within the parameters of the classroom everybody here finds themselves in. I do believe here everyone’s a star in their own respective right and I can hence only help you shine brighter by giving you the space to grow and be, by being a beacon of enlightenment that doesn’t stifle your search for answers. To me, there’s no such thing as an insignificant; irrelevant question. Too stupid to one, but the necessary piece that solved a puzzle to another.

As such – and don’t get me wrong – by default, to the extent that we’re in this school, are we stupid. Stupid, seeking knowledge because in being taught; exchanging ideas, do we become unstupidified, as it were. And in most time times, this is abled by one getting of off their high horse of apparent success by thinking outside the box since success is an enemy of wanting to move forward; it, success, creates a fallacious sense of a comfortable zone.

Stupidity, as an aspect of exploring the unknown if you do catch my drift, is a gem. Diametrically, it unshackles growth in vision in the course of people wanting to root it out and stem its virulent infestation by instituting progressive measures.

Thus said, I am not going to engage in infantile spats that merely do serve to unnecessarily divert attention away from other ardent learners from more pressing concerns and so, this bellicose discourse’s forthwith terminated.

                                                                                                                  xxxx                                                                                                                                 

Of these https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwicpP3_96T5AhWN_4UKHdb4BZAQFnoECAYQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcourses.washington.edu%2Fbangblue%2FL1vFA08_9.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3_otPkdApNfyy_kBj4sC7o; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj-5JXF-KT5AhVQ0oUKHS-oAkkQFnoECAcQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.mpia-hd.mpg.de%2Fhomes%2Fsemenov%2FLectures%2FHeidelberg_Uni_2012%2Flecture4-first-molecules.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3-Oowakz_UWsZWthPoJSB6, going by Hubble’s ‘Primeval Atom’ of which was the Big Bang, if the Earth was uninhabitable due to its hot ambience that eventually came to cool down, couldn’t volcanic events be deemed as having aided in the said cooling process as well as contributing to stability by acting as retardants, RetroThrusters so to speak, to its rotational velocity?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Ni Mimi. said:

In order for a teacher to pass their message, they mustn’t shout at their students nor mustn’t they shout down their students.

 

The above situations only instills fear in students such that were there ones who had questions that they wanted to ask, owing to the hostile, belligerent attitude of the teacher, instead do end up cringing in fear, unable to rise up and pose their problems in the quest for possible solutions.

 

That is, the foregoing only fosters dolts.

 

This school ought to nurture creativity by allowing others to express themselves within the parameters of the classroom everybody here finds themselves in. I do believe here everyone’s a star in their own respective right and I can hence only help you shine brighter by giving you the space to grow and be, by being a beacon of enlightenment that doesn’t stifle your search for answers. To me, there’s no such thing as an insignificant; irrelevant question. Too stupid to one, but the necessary piece that solved a puzzle to another.

 

As such – and don’t get me wrong – by default, to the extent that we’re in this school, are we stupid. Stupid, seeking knowledge because in being taught; exchanging ideas, do we become unstupidified, as it were. And in most time times, this is abled by one getting of off their high horse of apparent success by thinking outside the box since success is an enemy of wanting to move forward; it, success, creates a fallacious sense of a comfortable zone.

 

Stupidity, as an aspect of exploring the unknown if you do catch my drift, is a gem. Diametrically, it unshackles growth in vision in the course of people wanting to root it out and stem its virulent infestation by instituting progressive measures.

 

Thus said, I am not going to engage in infantile spats that merely do serve to unnecessarily divert attention away from other ardent learners from more pressing concerns and so, this bellicose discourse’s forthwith terminated.

 

                                                                                                                  xxxx                                                                                                                                 

 

Of these https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwicpP3_96T5AhWN_4UKHdb4BZAQFnoECAYQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcourses.washington.edu%2Fbangblue%2FL1vFA08_9.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3_otPkdApNfyy_kBj4sC7o; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj-5JXF-KT5AhVQ0oUKHS-oAkkQFnoECAcQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.mpia-hd.mpg.de%2Fhomes%2Fsemenov%2FLectures%2FHeidelberg_Uni_2012%2Flecture4-first-molecules.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3-Oowakz_UWsZWthPoJSB6, going by Hubble’s ‘Primeval Atom’ of which was the Big Bang, if the Earth was uninhabitable due to its hot ambience that eventually came to cool down, couldn’t volcanic events be deemed as having aided in the said cooling process as well as contributing to stability by acting as retardants, RetroThrusters so to speak, to its rotational velocity?

 

More gibberish. I'm out.