What elements, minerals, or just molecules do star forming ' MOLECULAR GAS CLOUDS' contain , as they start a Star Birth?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In some sense they are. Iron and nickel are in the core, and lighter elements outside. But chemistry also comes into play. Uranium and Thorium, for example, are heavy but stays in the outer parts because they don't fit (size and chemical properties) into the structure you get with dense iron and nickel. So they are excluded from the core.

.

My intuition still prompts me to guess that there is plenty of gold, uranium, lead, and other heavy elements/ molecules down in the lower reaches of the mantle and possibly the outer liquid core. However I doubt nobody will ever go to find out. Maybe it is the convection of the mantle that brings some of these toward the crusts and with some deep seated volcanos ' spews ' a certain amount out to the surface from time to time.

 

What I am not also clear on is :- did ? all these complicated molecules , mineral and compounds come down from the molecular clouds ? or did ? they get made by churning in the infant Earth? ( or even the current earth ) ?

 

For instance the Feldspar Silicates Minerals . ( I believe found in the Crusts ) Eg illustrated below :- did they get assembled down hear on Earth ?

 

K Al Si3 O8

 

 

Mike

Edited November 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

My intuition still prompts me to guess that there is plenty of gold, uranium, lead, and other heavy elements/ molecules down in the lower reaches of the mantle and possibly the outer liquid core. However I doubt nobody will ever go to find out. Maybe it is the convection of the mantle that brings some of these toward the crusts and with some deep seated volcanos ' spews ' a certain amount out to the surface from time to time.

 

 

Or, you know, you could investigate the science involved.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Or, you know, you could investigate the science involved.

Yes , I am doing that very thing , investigating the subject. But boy , is it a humungous subject ! Everything is so mind bogglingly large.

 

The distances are huge, the times are so long, the minerals are so complex, some processes are so slow like erosion , most things are hidden ,under the earth , the sea, hidden in time . Even the layout of the world is changing with time ! It's a moving mega feast !

 

The bit I am looking at, at the moment ,( Devonian sandstone being eroded in one place and deposited in another ) most of the u.k is under water . ( in Avalon ) it's fascinating to work out where we are ( or rather were !)

 

u.k just about on the equator , mostly underwater .

 

P.S. Actually below the equator( poss 15-30 degrees south) you can see Italy outline , come left around Spain - France . Uk up a bit , underwater some of U.k.nearing the subduction line . ( Lapetus Suture )

 

 

Water in a great river draining off the supercontinent ( euramerica ) over England .

Depositing its red sandstone (Sediment ) , over South Wales, Devon and Cornwall etc here to be picked up by the Early geologists and us today .

 

 

Mike

Edited November 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

.

For instance the Feldspar Silicates Minerals . ( I believe found in the Crusts ) Eg illustrated below :- did they get assembled down hear on Earth ?

 

K Al Si3 O8

 

Mike, few members who have read several of your posts would doubt for a moment your enthusiasm. It is a very positive thing to observe.

 

What is frustrating is your willingness to leap to completely wrong conclusions rather than perform some careful study.

 

The most elementary study of the feldspars would let you know that these are formed either from silicate melts, or solid state metamorphic reactions (the latter possibly incorporating some amount of metasomatism). Many of the objects that accreted to form the Earth would have contained feldspars, but the process of accretion would have melted practically all of these.

 

You need to review the very basic, but important concept of the Rock Cycle. Without that kind of knowledge, frankly, you have no business lecturing a group of people on sediments. It strikes me as being as presumptuous as me giving classes on landscape painting.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, few members who have read several of your posts would doubt for a moment your enthusiasm. It is a very positive thing to observe.

 

What is frustrating is your willingness to leap to completely wrong conclusions rather than perform some careful study.

 

.......... frankly, you have no business lecturing a group of people on sediments. It strikes me as being as presumptuous as me giving classes on landscape painting.

.

 

I am inclined to agree with everything you have said here.

 

I have found the investigation into this particular aspect of geology particularly daunting , vast , and out of my depth. To that end a few days ago arranged with the overseer of the group to coordinate a group discussion on the subject rather than a lecture. Remember this is a retirement recreational group ( U3A ) . I have to take my turn , as we all do to handle one months meeting . ( it's an amateur approach , all accept that ) .

 

I naively thought , sand came down streams from nearby high hills, chipped off, frosted rocks. Boy was I wrong , the story starts way back , utterly fascinating . But I can only introduce the subject and let those in the group who have deep knowledge , bring these points up. ( there are some qualified experts present. We normally get them to help us on unsure issues .)

 

Even though that is what I am doing with the Geology group next week . I none the less have a personal thirst , to understand what has gone on , through the millions of years, in this area of rock processing from molecular cloud to sand particles.

 

To that end .

 

Your comments " The most elementary study of the feldspars would let you know that these are formed either from silicate melts, or solid state metamorphic reactions (the latter possibly incorporating some amount of metasomatism). Many of the objects that accreted to form the Earth would have contained feldspars, but the process of accretion would have melted practically all of these.

You need to review the very basic, but important concept of the Rock Cycle "

 

Could you explain this paragraph in simple terms . That would be very useful for me . And will help in my oversight of the group discussion this coming week.

 

Thanks

 

. Mike

Edited November 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

I am inclined to agree with everything you have said here.

 

I have found the investigation into this particular aspect of geology particularly daunting , vast , and out of my depth. To that end a few days ago arranged with the overseer of the group to coordinate a group discussion on the subject rather than a lecture. Remember this is a retirement recreational group ( U3A ) . I have to take my turn , as we all do to handle one months meeting . ( it's an amateur approach , all accept that .

 

I naively thought , sand came down streams from nearby high hills, chipped off, frosted rocks. Boy was I wrong , the story starts way back , utterly fascinating . But I can only introduce the subject and let those in the group who have deep knowledge , bring these points up.

 

Even though that is what I am doing with the Geology group next week . I none the less have a personal thirst , to understand what has gone on , through the millions of years, in this area of rock processing from molecular cloud to sand particles.

 

To that end .

 

Your comments " The most elementary study of the feldspars would let you know that these are formed either from silicate melts, or solid state metamorphic reactions (the latter possibly incorporating some amount of metasomatism). Many of the objects that accreted to form the Earth would have contained feldspars, but the process of accretion would have melted practically all of these.

You need to review the very basic, but important concept of the Rock Cycle "

 

Could you explain this paragraph in simple terms . That would be very useful for me . And will help in my oversight of the group discussion this coming week.

The Rock Cycle:

1. Simplistically, all rocks begin as igneous rocks, crystallizing from a molten state. For our purposes we can completely ignore anything other than a silicate melt. i.e a magma in which there is a high proportion of silica. As this magma cools various minerals form. These fall into the following major categories:

Ferromagnesian minerals (e.g. in order of increasing structural complexity, olivines, pyroxenes, amphiboles and micas)

Feldspars (silicates rich in alkalis and alkali metals)

Quartz

Accessory minerals

 

2. When exposed at the surface these rocks are subject to weathering (chemical, physical and biological), erosion, transport and deposition. The severity and duration of each step and the original composition of the igneous rock will determine the nature of the deposited sediment: long and severe processes will leave only the most robust minerals, typically quartz i.e. a sand; feldspars will be converted to clays. After deposition the effects of heat, temperature and circulating fluids will solidify the sediment into a rock, a process called diagenesis.

 

3. Some sedimentary rocks are formed, instead by precipitation from evaporating sea water. (The evaporites: gypsum, anhydrite, salt, etc.) Others are formed from the shells of organisms - limestones, chalks, oolites, etc.

 

4. If these sedimentary rocks, or some original igneous rocks are buried deeply, or exposed to high temperatures from igneous intrusions, then they will undergo further physical and chemical changes, becoming metamorphic rocks.

 

5. All three rock types, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic, may all undergo later weathering, erosion, transportation and deposition.

 

6. All three types may be heated sufficiently to melt wholly or partially, thus generating further igneous rock.

 

And so it continues. This is explained much better, with illustrations, on many sites. Just search for Rock Cycle. If you are clear on this I can cover a couple of other points from your post. If anything is unclear, ask.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The Rock Cycle:

1. Simplistically, all rocks begin as igneous rocks, crystallizing from a molten state. For our purposes we can completely ignore anything other than a silicate melt. i.e a magma in which there is a high proportion of silica. As this magma cools various minerals form. These fall into the following major categories:

Ferromagnesian minerals (e.g. in order of increasing structural complexity, olivines, pyroxenes, amphiboles and micas)

Feldspars (silicates rich in alkalis and alkali metals)

Quartz

Accessory minerals

 

2. When exposed at the surface these rocks are subject to weathering (chemical, physical and biological), erosion, transport and deposition. The severity and duration of each step and the original composition of the igneous rock will determine the nature of the deposited sediment: long and severe processes will leave only the most robust minerals, typically quartz i.e. a sand; feldspars will be converted to clays. After deposition the effects of heat, temperature and circulating fluids will solidify the sediment into a rock, a process called diagenesis.

 

3. Some sedimentary rocks are formed, instead by precipitation from evaporating sea water. (The evaporites: gypsum, anhydrite, salt, etc.) Others are formed from the shells of organisms - limestones, chalks, oolites, etc.

 

4. If these sedimentary rocks, or some original igneous rocks are buried deeply, or exposed to high temperatures from igneous intrusions, then they will undergo further physical and chemical changes, becoming metamorphic rocks.

 

5. All three rock types, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic, may all undergo later weathering, erosion, transportation and deposition.

 

6. All three types may be heated sufficiently to melt wholly or partially, thus generating further igneous rock.

 

And so it continues. This is explained much better, with illustrations, on many sites. Just search for Rock Cycle. If you are clear on this I can cover a couple of other points from your post. If anything is unclear, ask.

.

.

O.k. I understand most of what you have explained concisely here. I have heard much of this in fragmented pieces, often out of context , but hearing it all at once in context has made it very clear ( hopefully) , to me . There are a couple of questions , I am prompted to ask , on hearing this .

 

1) Does that mean , that at the very very early start of earth. That all the surface ,looked like one huge igneous ,bubbling , molten rock. And were the four, states already peering up . Namely active changes to

 

" (A) Ferromagnesian minerals (e.g. in order of increasing structural complexity, olivines, pyroxenes, amphiboles and micas)

(B) Feldspars (silicates rich in alkalis and alkali metals)

 

© Quartz

 

(D) Accessory minerals ".

 

Or did they come individually, sporadically , later?

 

Had any of these restructuring ( A to D ) Already occurred in ' the molecular cloud ?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Quote. " After deposition the effects of heat, temperature and circulating fluids will solidify the sediment into a rock, a process called diagenesis. " not sure that I understand that fully " ( could look it up )

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

I presume , there was no initial crusts , quite how did the initial ' Accretion' get going as , did it not need a ' Crust ' of some sort , to accrete against , like a bull dozer .? In some form of subduction process? Or are you talking about the accretion of dust particles accreting to become bigger clumps?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

It sounds simplistically " as if everything started off igneous (molten ) and everything ultimately returns to being ( molten )? . Is this so?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Mike

Edited November 22, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[puppypower]

 

What elements, minerals, or just molecules do star forming ' MOLECULAR GAS CLOUDS' contain , as they start a Star Birth?

 

One of the important molecules for star birth is water or H2O. Water is the second or third most abundant molecule in the universe behind hydrogen gas and maybe carbon monoxide. The water in the gas cloud will be frozen as ice. What water brings to the table is when ice melts into liquid water, it contacts. Ice floats on water because the ice is less dense than liquid water. Water is only one of the two natural things that show this freeze and thaw anomaly. All other materials expand when they melt and contract when they freeze.

 

What this water anomaly brings to the table is as the star begins to collapse the gas cloud, and the ice is compressed and heated by the work, instead of the water expanding like all the rest of the minerals in the cloud, the water contracts. This result in a collapse hammer effect; ball implodes. The higher the percent of ice the bigger the core hammer. The slamming of the core, by the imploding ball, helps lights a fusion fire. Water can be H2O, of D2O and T2O; heavy water.

 

Water, as you increase temperature and pressure, will change phases. The core water will start as solid ice, then collapse to liquid, then heat and pressurize to hydrothermal, then superionic, then ionic and then metallic. Once water become a metal it can conduct electricity like any metal. The core starts to light up with currents that help to spark the fusion.

Edited November 21, 2015 by puppypower

[Ophiolite]

 

One of the important molecules for star birth is water or H2O. Water is the second or third most abundant molecule in the universe behind hydrogen gas and maybe carbon monoxide. The water in the gas cloud will be frozen as ice. What water brings to the table is when ice melts into liquid water, it contacts. Ice floats on water because the ice is less dense than liquid water. Water is only one of the two natural things that show this freeze and thaw anomaly. All other materials expand when they melt and contract when they freeze.

 

What this water anomaly brings to the table is as the star begins to collapse the gas cloud, and the ice is compressed and heated by the work, instead of the water expanding like all the rest of the minerals in the cloud, the water contracts. This result in a collapse hammer effect; ball implodes. The higher the percent of ice the bigger the core hammer. The slamming of the core, by the imploding ball, helps lights a fusion fire. Water can be H2O, of D2O and T2O; heavy water.

 

Water, as you increase temperature and pressure, will change phases. The core water will start as solid ice, then collapse to liquid, then heat and pressurize to hydrothermal, then superionic, then ionic and then metallic. Once water become a metal it can conduct electricity like any metal. The core starts to light up with currents that help to spark the fusion.

That is the most extensive mass of utter crap I have read for some time. While it contains snippets of fact, you have combined them in bizarre ways and reached even more bizarre conclusions. If you are ignorant of a topic, as is patently the case here, please do not confuse others with your ignorance. Study, or ask thoughtful questions.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I have found a Wikipedia quote which shows the early earth being started by grit and dust accreting up to 200meter clumps , then on to larger and larger clumps .

 

 

Here is the Wikipedia link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

 

Scan down to :- Formation of the planets point [ 28 ]

 

Paragraph starting ....

 

The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.[28] The currently accepted method by which the planets formed is accretion, in which the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar. Through direct contact, these grains formed into clumps up to 200 metres in diameter, which in turn collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals) of ~10 kilometres (km) in size.[29] These gradually increased through further collisions, growing at the rate of centimetres per year over the course of the next few million years.[29].....

 

 

Mike

Edited November 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

You might like this:

"Stanford astronomers observe the birth of an alien planet"

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/proto-planet-forming-111815.html

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You might like this:

"Stanford astronomers observe the birth of an alien planet"

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/proto-planet-forming-111815.html

Yes . Good comments on the accretion disc .

 

I am rather hoping I can find something , where the lumps become Rocks , and what sort of rocks are they . Are they primitive at this stage or already including some more complex minerals

 

As Otheolite describes of earth rocks , at some stage having ...

"Ferromagnesian minerals (e.g. in order of increasing structural complexity, olivines, pyroxenes, amphiboles and micas)

Feldspars (silicates rich in alkalis and alkali metals)

Quartz

Accessory minerals"

 

I am still trying to ascertain wether the early dust and grit is already ' stuffed ' with exotic minerals ,molecules and compounds or just very basic constituents , Where the complex materials have to be generated later in the newly forming hot planet ( eg newly forming Earth ) ?

 

 

In researching the area of study , suggested by Otheolite , namely DIAGENESIS.

 

I have found the dividing line between what is possible in dust clouds ( with a region and heat ) and what can only be possible on a planet like earth with erosion , deposition, and sedimentation. ( which includes a certain amount of pressure ) . Here only on the surface of earth can Diagenesis take place during the sedimentation process. Namely cementation and a certain pressure change . ( but NOT metamorphic ie with heat ) . ( I think ! )

 

Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagenesis

 

 

Mike

Edited November 22, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

Many of the dust particles in the accretion disc consist of many of the silicates I have listed. As they accrete into larger bodies temperature will rise. This is because some of the kinetic energy of the impact is converted into heat and because there were more radioactive elements at that time. The heat can generate further mineral changes and - in the larger bodies - lead to melting and differentiation into an iron rich core and a silica rich mantle. The mineralogy of a large asteroid is broadly the same as the mineralogy of the Earth in terms of complexity - however, it will overwhelmingly be an igneous mineralogy. (i.e. no sedimentary and few, if any, metamorphic minerals.)

 

However, this is largely irrelevant to any discussion of rocks on Earth. The process of forming the Earth leads to reworking of practically all this material. Forget about the accretion process, forget about core formation on the Earth, forget about crust formation on the Earth, forget about the formation of the first continents. For the past three billion years and more the rock cycle as I described earlier is the important thing.

 

If you insist on focusing on the accretion disc when you are preparing for a discussion on sedimentary rocks then just do some reading on meteorites and asteroids.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Many of the dust particles in the accretion disc consist of many of the silicates I have listed. As they accrete into larger bodies temperature will rise. This is because some of the kinetic energy of the impact is converted into heat and because there were more radioactive elements at that time. The heat can generate further mineral changes and - in the larger bodies - lead to melting and differentiation into an iron rich core and a silica rich mantle. The mineralogy of a large asteroid is broadly the same as the mineralogy of the Earth in terms of complexity - however, it will overwhelmingly be an igneous mineralogy. (i.e. no sedimentary and few, if any, metamorphic minerals.)

 

However, this is largely irrelevant to any discussion of rocks on Earth. The process of forming the Earth leads to reworking of practically all this material. Forget about the accretion process, forget about core formation on the Earth, forget about crust formation on the Earth, forget about the formation of the first continents. For the past three billion years and more the rock cycle as I described earlier is the important thing.

 

If you insist on focusing on the accretion disc when you are preparing for a discussion on sedimentary rocks then just do some reading on meteorites and asteroids.

.

 

That was great .

I have nearly got my answers now. I was concerned to get a handle on , what the early earth was like ( mineralogically speaking ) . What you appear to be saying ,is that the spectrum of elements, molecules, compound and minerals, was pretty well all done before " the infant earth" ( unless they were unable to be formed in ' the cloud, or previously inside stars ) .

 

Are there any minerals , compounds , significant mixtures, that needed sedimentation and the ' rock cycle on earth' , to forge their production that was not possible previously. Say Limestone, or ??? Or other earth orientated geological cycles to produce them . Are any things produced say by igneous activity on earth , that were not produced in previous existence in outer space ( say in stars, molecular clouds, meteors , asteroids. comets , etc) ?

 

The history of the world seems to some extent, to be about living things and their capability to proffer change , being the new additions . ( from microbes to sentient Humans) .

 

The loose end on this matter is what is the nature of the earth , below . Are the mixtures down there in the mantle , stone like , rock like , all full of , or sprinkled with the , elements, compounds, molecules, mixtures that we have been discussing previously.

 

Here is a link to a proposed view of the early Earth ( much as you describe ) .

 

Link :- http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783642225512-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1370013-p174132765

 

Early earth art impression :-

 

Mike

Edited November 22, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

What you appear to be saying ,is that the spectrum of elements, molecules, compound and minerals, was pretty well all done before " the infant earth" ( unless they were unable to be formed in ' the cloud, or previously inside stars ) .

All the elements that are presently in the Earth were present at its formation, though - because of radioactive decay - the proportion of some of them has changed. The early solar system contained elements formed in more than one supernova. This included a number of short-lived radioactive elements that were significant in the heating of primitive bodies in the accretion disc and that left there mark on chemistry/mineralogy of meteors and asteroids.

 

In general, only the simplest of molecules could have survived the initial stages of planetary formation. The collision thought to have produced the moon would likely have rendered the Earth molten throughout. I would not expect any minerals to have survived from that time.

 

However, after the Earth had cooled sufficiently to form its first crust, accretion was not complete. Impacts continued for the better part of a billion years. In this case some molecules, simple and complex, and minerals would have survived. Also, the minerals that now formed were - in many instances - the same, or very similar to those that formed in the accretion disc.

 

 

Are there any minerals , compounds , significant mixtures, that needed sedimentation and the ' rock cycle on earth' , to forge their production that was not possible previously. Say Limestone, or ??? Or other earth orientated geological cycles to produce them . Are any things produced say by igneous activity on earth , that were not produced in previous existence in outer space ( say in stars, molecular clouds, meteors , asteroids. comets , etc) ?

I have already answered this question, both implicitly and explicitly.

 

Practically all sedimentary minerals and probably most metamorphic minerals would not have formed during accretion.

Limestones, which are generally biogenic, are not going to form in the vacuum of space since there is no life to produce them.

Shales, formed from clay minerals, are not going to be present, since there is insufficient water to generate volumes of clay from feldspar and no meaningful transport mechanism to deposit them.

Garnets and staurolite and a host of other metamorphic minerals will not form, since the pressure and temperature conditions are unsuitable.

 

 

The history of the world seems to some extent, to be about living things and their capability to proffer change , being the new additions . ( from microbes to sentient Humans) .

The Mid Ocean Ridge Basalts see things differently.

 

 

The loose end on this matter is what is the nature of the earth , below . Are the mixtures down there in the mantle , stone like , rock like , all full of , or sprinkled with the , elements, compounds, molecules, mixtures that we have been discussing previously.

Mike, I continue to be bemused by your oscillation between very, very basic concepts and wild speculation about more advanced topics. You cannot sensibly engage in the latter till you have mastered the former.

 

Surely you have read of the basic Earth structure! Iron-nickel core, with traces of other elements. Rocky mantle, composed of silicate minerals, solid throughout - except for some partial melting in its upper reaches. Rocky crust with basic oceanic plates and acidic continental plates. (The terms basic and acidic in this context referring to silica content.)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

------------------------------------

Quote "Mike, I continue to be bemused by your oscillation between very, very basic concepts and wild speculation about more advanced topics. You cannot sensibly engage in the latter till you have mastered the former." Unquote. Ophiolite

------------------------------------

 

 

I think it is a consequence of ' not knowing accurately ' that causes the speculation.

 

Looking at Art . Pictures , visualisation recently , I have found out :-

 

When we look at a painting .' Say abstract '. Because we are not told what it is . Very quickly our brain chases ideas , images in our memory , and very quickly you see ( a face , a sky , a river whatever , seldom a nothing )

We are hard wired to look for solutions, understanding , solve problems ) if we do not know what something is ' we speculate ' in order to make sense of our environment . When we know or have a taught explanation , we do not go out of our way to speculate . But having no preconceived ideas we ( certainly me ) go wild trying to give reason to the world I find myself in .

 

 

An artist can use this to his or her advantage in a painting. By just suggesting an image , the artist can rely on the viewers brain , making a far better job at pictorially representing the 'thing ' than the painter can . For example the painter only need put a vertical stroke and a few billows of green and an observer fills in or imagines all the detailed leaves and branches and registers a tree ( provided of course it is not the main focus of the picture. If it were , then he or she can make scant strokes for , clouds , or hedges say )

 

I find this very interesting in its own right !

 

Mike

Edited November 24, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In tracing down the sandstone sediment , and believing it to have moved toward us ( Devon England ) during the Devonian era . And subsequent periods , Believing , the draining rivers of the supercontinent EURAMERICA Started the transportation of erosion of mountains . Were these the Appalachians as they were then in Euramerica ( supercontinent ) . Or was it coming from mountains further toward Devon .

 

Accepting Devon did not look anything like it does today . Namely it had been in a desert . The thing is where was the origin of the sand of that desert ?

 

Some of these images show the ' Appalachians ' and we were somewhere to the east of them !

 

Link :- euramerica carboniferous era. images of the devonian era at supercontinent euramerica https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian

 

 

 

 

I think , I have just about got my head round :-

 

Where and How , the particles of sand in my local Red Devonian Sedimentary Sandstone come from ( quite a journey ) .

 

Mike

Edited November 25, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It would seem the consensus of opinion , of geologists and cosmic , astronomical experts , that :-

 

The majority of elements , molecules , compounds have been made before , or in the cloud . This may include some minerals. All this from the Big Bang stage , internal workings of early stars , supernova of stars , and the condensation , or accretion of clouds in interstellar space .

 

However it is felt that more complex minerals may have been made within the early molten stage of early earth , as well as developing since as earth cooled. Some feel that although complex minerals may have been present in the ' clouds' , that the high temperatures experienced during the formation of early earth , will have broken these minerals up into more fundamental compounds and molecules . These to restructure and new complex minerals, to be created in the cooling of the early earth and since .

 

This is not necessarily an ' expert statement ' but rather a consensus of all those I have spoken with.

 

Mike

Edited November 30, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos