Came across this whilst randomly clicking on Wikipedia articles.

Mineral Evolution

Very interesting I think so anyway

Cymek said:

Came across this whilst randomly clicking on Wikipedia articles.

Mineral Evolution

Very interesting I think so anyway

The title is at the very least.

Cymek said:

Came across this whilst randomly clicking on Wikipedia articles.

Mineral Evolution

Very interesting I think so anyway

I did once run across a great book of minerals that expanded the discussion of this topic much more. Let me take that one step further by considering minerals ftom before the origin of the Earth.

Start with minerals from the solar nebula, or even before that.

First minerals were the ices, frozen methane and things like that.
Adding heat resulted in hydrogen loss, resulting in minerals like diamond, calcium aluminate, forsterite etc.
Then came water loss to get rocks like enstatite and iron-nickel.
Planet formation of Earth generated the igneous minerals, such as perovskite-like minerals.
Fractionation in igneous minerals then gave us quartz, olivine, hornblende and many others.
Breakdown and sedimentation led to the formation of kaolin, clay minerals and so many more.
Then there’s evolution by interaction with water to get halite, gypsum for starters.
Micas and heaps of others from contact metamorphism.
And then interaction of water with metamorphic rock.

The wikipedia article is correct in sayingbthat the greatest number of minerals have evolved through the interaction of living things with the above minerals.

And then comes the anthropocene with the minerals produced intentionally and unintentionally by industrial processes.

Of course minerals evolve.

It mentions that Mars and Venus most likely experienced some of this evolution which you could I suppose use to determine what materials would be available if you colonise them, Mars anyway.

As an aside, did the sun spontaneously ignite over a few seconds/mini seconds once all the requirements for fusion were reached?

polymorphs that emerge later are more stable

Peak Warming Man said:

As an aside, did the sun spontaneously ignite over a few seconds/mini seconds once all the requirements for fusion were reached?

You could compare it to the Zeppelin?

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

As an aside, did the sun spontaneously ignite over a few seconds/mini seconds once all the requirements for fusion were reached?

You could compare it to the Zeppelin?

I assume the ignition would expand at the speed of light or thereabouts

Cymek said:

It mentions that Mars and Venus most likely experienced some of this evolution which you could I suppose use to determine what materials would be available if you colonise them, Mars anyway.

The lack of water and lifeforms on Mars amd Moon has severely limited the number of minerals that exist in both places. The lack of crustal recycling has limited it even more, making minerals even from metamorphic action rare.

Annoyingly, there are far fewer minerals on Mercury, too, despite its higher density, because all the valuable heavy elements are buried deep down.

It’d be interresting to know more about the evolution of minerals on Venus. Some people have even suggested that Venus has tellurium snow, though I can’t say i believe that.

SCIENCE said:

polymorphs that emerge later are more stable

Less stable. Because they emerged in highly unusual environments.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

As an aside, did the sun spontaneously ignite over a few seconds/mini seconds once all the requirements for fusion were reached?

You could compare it to the Zeppelin?

I assume the ignition would expand at the speed of light or thereabouts

Something like 38 seconds to consume a Zeppelin

Peak Warming Man said:

As an aside, did the sun spontaneously ignite over a few seconds/mini seconds once all the requirements for fusion were reached?

Damn good question. It ignited in less than a million years, i know that already. I’ll look it up.

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

As an aside, did the sun spontaneously ignite over a few seconds/mini seconds once all the requirements for fusion were reached?

Damn good question. It ignited in less than a million years, i know that already. I’ll look it up.

For starters, it’s not instantaneous because light takes 20,000 years to get from the inside to the outside of the Sun even now. The material of the Sun is essentially opaque to light because of its carbon – nitrogen – oxygen content. Think of the Earth, we can hardly see the surface from space because of the thickness of the atmosphere, and that’s only 100 km thick.

Also, it’s not instantaneous because even before there was any significant nuclear fusion, the Sun was generating heat and light generated by the gravitational energy of infalling matter. Boyle’s Law, as pressure increases so temperature increases.

And on top of that, the Sun was undergoing deuterium fusion before it started burning hydrogen.

Even more important, the solar nebula was initially opaque to starlight so the light from the Sun didn’t reach far into the solar nebula. That had to wait until the pressure from the solar wind and the ionisation from UV light became enough to start pushing the solar nebula out of the solar system.

OK, that’s the preliminaries out of the way. In the following timing, zero time is the start of gravitational collapse.

Deuterium burning first started at 40,000 years, peaked at 100,000 years, an was complete at 500,000 years.

The first light from the Sun is sometimes conventionally taken as 100,000 years after the start of the collapse of the solar nebula. That’s a tiny length of time on evolutionary scales.

The Sun continued to shrink (by radiation of heat generated by Boyle’s Law) until about 10 million years after the start of the collapse, which was roughly the time that hydrogen fusion kicked in and quietly halted the contraction. Then over the next 50 million years the Sun slowly increased in brightness and temperature.

light takes 20,000 years to get from the inside to the outside of the Sun

—

Up to 1 million years.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

As an aside, did the sun spontaneously ignite over a few seconds/mini seconds once all the requirements for fusion were reached?

Damn good question. It ignited in less than a million years, i know that already. I’ll look it up.

For starters, it’s not instantaneous because light takes 20,000 years to get from the inside to the outside of the Sun even now. The material of the Sun is essentially opaque to light because of its carbon – nitrogen – oxygen content. Think of the Earth, we can hardly see the surface from space because of the thickness of the atmosphere, and that’s only 100 km thick.

Also, it’s not instantaneous because even before there was any significant nuclear fusion, the Sun was generating heat and light generated by the gravitational energy of infalling matter. Boyle’s Law, as pressure increases so temperature increases.

And on top of that, the Sun was undergoing deuterium fusion before it started burning hydrogen.

Even more important, the solar nebula was initially opaque to starlight so the light from the Sun didn’t reach far into the solar nebula. That had to wait until the pressure from the solar wind and the ionisation from UV light became enough to start pushing the solar nebula out of the solar system.

OK, that’s the preliminaries out of the way. In the following timing, zero time is the start of gravitational collapse.

Deuterium burning first started at 40,000 years, peaked at 100,000 years, an was complete at 500,000 years.

The first light from the Sun is sometimes conventionally taken as 100,000 years after the start of the collapse of the solar nebula. That’s a tiny length of time on evolutionary scales.

The Sun continued to shrink (by radiation of heat generated by Boyle’s Law) until about 10 million years after the start of the collapse, which was roughly the time that hydrogen fusion kicked in and quietly halted the contraction. Then over the next 50 million years the Sun slowly increased in brightness and temperature.

Thanks Moll.

But does all this conform to Andrew Einstein’s theory of evolution?

Woodie said:

But does all this conform to Andrew Einstein’s theory of evolution?

I dunno. What are your thoughts?

roughbarked said:

Woodie said:

But does all this conform to Andrew Einstein’s theory of evolution?

I dunno. What are your thoughts?

Oooo,,,,,,, ummmm…. I’m not often asked that, Mr Barked. Thanks for asking. Really appreciated. I don’t often have thoughts. I had one earlier today, but. Now I forgot what it was.

Oh yes… Andrew Einsten’s theory of evolution. It all makes sense from beginning to end.