Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Iron came from space

  1. #1 Iron came from space 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1
    What do you think of one theory that says IRON is not a materiel like the others (water, stone, hydrogène, oxygène). these components have been transformed or created from local reactions however the iron and came from space and melted with the others !


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I have never heard this theory, but it sounds bizarre, inaccurate, misleading and ignorant.

    We are pretty sure we know how iron is made in the nuclear furnace of a supernova. We have more than an outline of how it combines with other elements into dust particles that coalesce in a collapsing molecular cloud. We have an excellent idea of how planetesimals form in such a cloud and how the larger ones collapse to spheres under their own gravity and segregate out the iron and sierophile elements under the heat of formation, and how such planetesimals aggregate to form terrestrial planets or the cores of gas and ice giants. Nothing in our rather good understanding of these processes allows for the nonsense proposed in this 'theory'.

    Could I ask where you heard about it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    We are pretty sure we know how iron is made in the nuclear furnace of a supernova.
    I believe the larger stars can create iron during normal stellar fusion without going nova.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You are completely correct. (Although the formation of the iron absorbs rather than releases energy. ) My interest lies in planet formation, so I need to get that iron out into the interstellar medium. Consequently I get fixated on nice supernovae to distribute the raw material of planets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i don't see why a distinction needs to be made between iron and the other elements
    if you're going to single any element out then it should be hydrogen since that is what goes to form stars - all other elements are the by-product of normal stellar evolution or, as John Galt stated, a supernova event
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i don't see why a distinction needs to be made between iron and the other elements
    I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    A distinction is made in the Koran. Iron rained down. Apparently that's an image that sticks and some people want to reconcile it with science.

    I say let Allah be the cause of supernova by the laws of physics he created, so man would have red blood, waffle irons, and other diverse miracles.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    A distinction is made in the Koran. Iron rained down.
    so does hydrogen in the form of water, but no-one finds that remarkable
    and while we're at it, what about the other types of meteorites ? should we single out silicates for special mention as well ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    A distinction is made in the Koran. Iron rained down.
    so does hydrogen in the form of water, but no-one finds that remarkable
    and while we're at it, what about the other types of meteorites ? should we single out silicates for special mention as well ?
    I think the distinction arises because iron which "rained down" (and which was a far more noteworthy event than common rain) is distinctively and visibly different from the iron which was already here - ie, not rusted, commonly alloyed with nickel (and/or sulphur), could be forged into higher-grade weapons or tools... all up, a "gift from above".

    The silicates which "rained down" don't appear or act all that different from any other scorched silicates, and I don't think the writers of the Koran (or their educated associates) were caught up on the chemical formula for water.
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I think the distinction arises because iron which "rained down" is distinctively and visibly different from the iron which was already here
    Not an observation I have ever made, mate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    - ie, not rusted, commonly alloyed with nickel (and/or sulphur), could be forged into higher-grade weapons or tools... all up, a "gift from above".
    Seems quite unlikely. And if this were the case, why did man start using iron only reasonably late on in his evolution, incidentally after creating the technology to refine ores?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I think the distinction arises because iron which "rained down" is distinctively and visibly different from the iron which was already here
    Not an observation I have ever made, mate.
    then perhaps you should observe more?

    http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.co...-Meteorite.jpg


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    - ie, not rusted, commonly alloyed with nickel (and/or sulphur), could be forged into higher-grade weapons or tools... all up, a "gift from above".
    Seems quite unlikely. And if this were the case, why did man start using iron only reasonably late on in his evolution, incidentally after creating the technology to refine ores?
    then perhaps you should read more?

    from- http://www.jstor.org/pss/2844401

    * The Use of Meteoric Iron
    * T. A. Rickard
    * The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 71, No. 1/2 (1941), pp. 55-66
    (article consists of 14 pages)
    * Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
    * Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2844401
    Primitive man everywhere used meteoric iron in the earliest stage of his metal culture, that is to say, when he was beginning to use native metals ...
    ETA: it's possible you're confusing using iron with the Iron Age, which required extraction and processing of ores on a large scale to really get under way?
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I think the distinction arises because iron which "rained down" (and which was a far more noteworthy event than common rain) is distinctively and visibly different from the iron which was already here - ie, not rusted, commonly alloyed with nickel (and/or sulphur), could be forged into higher-grade weapons or tools... all up, a "gift from above".
    granted that meteoritic iron would have appeared as a gift of the gods, and the koran is not the only place where it gets such a reverential mention - however, to persist in using the state of knowledge from close to 2 millennia ago to single out iron from all the other elements - as the OP does - seems rather like labouring the point to me
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    I think the distinction arises because iron which "rained down" (and which was a far more noteworthy event than common rain) is distinctively and visibly different from the iron which was already here - ie, not rusted, commonly alloyed with nickel (and/or sulphur), could be forged into higher-grade weapons or tools... all up, a "gift from above".
    granted that meteoritic iron would have appeared as a gift of the gods, and the koran is not the only place where it gets such a reverential mention - however, to persist in using the state of knowledge from close to 2 millennia ago to single out iron from all the other elements - as the OP does - seems rather like labouring the point to me
    I'm sorry - I thought understanding how such a misconception as presented in the OP can arise is one of paths to addressing that misconception;
    John Galt was already doing a creditable job of using another path - providing correct information ...

    but it was marnixR's statement -
    i don't see why a distinction needs to be made between iron and the other elements ...
    - which prompted the responses from Pong and myself.

    Now we are in a position to suggest that karim's "one theory" is most likely drawn from ancient, possibly religious, texts (or thoughts derived therefrom) ...

    if I were to answer the question in the OP -
    Quote Originally Posted by karim
    What do you think of one theory that says IRON is not a materiel like the others ... etc
    - I would reply: not much

    Whether it is worth suggesting some basic introductions to science in general, and geosciences in particular, depends somewhat upon karim's purpose in posting the question in the first place.

    As for "labouring the point" - whilst it may all be "old hat" and "wives' tales" to crusty or wizened old cynics like us, for karim it might be the latest unschooled light-bulb moment that flared up in the bath ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Besides meteoric iron, there are iron nodules in some basaltic flows. I have read about one in northern Canada where the native iron was collected by the Inuits and hammer welded into larger pieces to make knife blades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    everything came from space.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Besides meteoric iron, there are iron nodules in some basaltic flows. I have read about one in northern Canada where the native iron was collected by the Inuits and hammer welded into larger pieces to make knife blades.
    Interesting. Thanks. I suppose the odds of finding those or meteors are greatest in a barren landscape?

    ***

    Meteor sword owns, IMO. Man that would be awesome.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •