|
|
Post by 1dave on Apr 8, 2016 9:36:27 GMT -5
What test did you use for platinum? The killer test is specific gravity since Pt is incredibly dense. The S.G. of pure Pt is 21.5 but it's often found in association with other Pt group metals like rhodium, osmium, palladium etc., so S.G. often ranges from 14.0 to 19.0. The high gravity, color (gray-white, metallic luster) and malleability are typical, along with Pt's infusibility and insolubility in acid. The bigger the star that goes supernova the heavier the elements that are formed. @shotgunner sounds like a possible meteorite to me! |
|
|
|
Post by glennz01 on Apr 8, 2016 22:40:26 GMT -5
What test did you use for platinum? The killer test is specific gravity since Pt is incredibly dense. The S.G. of pure Pt is 21.5 but it's often found in association with other Pt group metals like rhodium, osmium, palladium etc., so S.G. often ranges from 14.0 to 19.0. The high gravity, color (gray-white, metallic luster) and malleability are typical, along with Pt's infusibility and insolubility in acid. The bigger the star that goes supernova the heavier the elements that are formed. @shotgunner sounds like a possible meteorite to me! Technically everything is stardust that is true. I have never heard of a platinum meteor though |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 23:00:47 GMT -5
glennz01Only because the meteor scientists only bother to classify the common ones. Consider the following: In the 4.3 billion years since the earth formed, all very dense elements have had ample opportunity to sink deep inside the earth's core. Secondly, all major occurrences of precious metals are very localized. Now that you are considering this; Visualize the mogollon rim of Arizona and the occurrence of big time copper deposits in a large arc approximizing a circle that is concentric with the mogollon rim, the obvious lip of a meteor crater. There is absolutely zero reason that surface deposits of precious (and other dense) metals are not meteoric in origin, except for the meteorite researchers fail to recognize them. Ignoring facts does not change them. Maybe 1dave will add to my observations. The first of which is his anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by glennz01 on Apr 9, 2016 1:08:57 GMT -5
glennz01 Only because the meteor scientists only bother to classify the common ones. Consider the following: In the 4.3 billion years since the earth formed, all very dense elements have had ample opportunity to sink deep inside the earth's core. Secondly, all major occurrences of precious metals are very localized. Now that you are considering this; Visualize the mogollon rim of Arizona and the occurrence of big time copper deposits in a large arc approximizing a circle that is concentric with the mogollon rim, the obvious lip of a meteor crater. There is absolutely zero reason that surface deposits of precious (and other dense) metals are not meteoric in origin, except for the meteorite researchers fail to recognize them. Ignoring facts does not change them. Maybe 1dave will add to my observations. The first of which is his anyway! It is interesting although I thought platinum formed like gold forums... also it is crystalline. everything was brought to the earth by meteors during the creation though However, this is in a glaciated area so it could have been in a mountain at one point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 8:31:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Apr 9, 2016 10:05:14 GMT -5
Every atom on this planet came from "outer space" and more is always on the way.  Some scientists are a fearful lot and can't bear to face reality. They have convinced themselves it all happened only once a long time ago. As @shotgunner said, there are all kinds of meteorites, but "scientists" only focus on "irons" and a few others because they are easier to find. Look up "The Planetary Scientist's Companion" by Katharinea Lodders and Bruce Fegley, Jr. Excellent information! Even though the competition tried to destroy them because of a very few "errata" that always occurs in books with SO MUCH information. About meteorites, turn to pages 296-331 for the kinds of meteorites and the minerals found in them! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 10:20:33 GMT -5
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe the only elements in space are irons and such that are described and defined by a small cadre of meteorite scientists.
Gold in alaska, canada, northern california and any other gold place on the planet did not "form" there. It formed in the cores of large stars. The only topic of contention is this:
When did it come to be on this planet?
Is all the gold on earth here from the days of planetary formation?
Or
Is space yielding new material?
In the case of iron. You know the answer. New iron falling from space all the time. People collect them, and make art with them. We call them meteorites. At the end of summer I will magnetically sweep the roof of my home. Any iron up there has only one source, space. Micrometeorites. I had a couple grams i collected over a few summers. Lost them. Want more.
One has to ask themself:
Is iron somehow a unique element that is the only one that falls from space? Is there some mystical limitation that keeps all other elements from raining on our planet?
|
|
Nov 15, 2024 17:44:51 GMT -5
Nov 15, 2024 17:44:51 GMT -5
