mind blowing fact!

tweeta_bear · Jan 18, 2014

dont know if its true but it gives me hope!

cazisme · Feb 20, 2014

Wow man all that info is great. Look what snowboarders do with a halfpipe just think what they could do with a full one.

tweeta_bear · Feb 20, 2014

KevinInColorado · Feb 21, 2014

Way cool Tweeta!

TheNewCatfish · Feb 21, 2014

I read recently that MORE gold is being mined now in the United States than during the 1849 Gold Rush era. Hard to believe, even with the addition of Alaska as a state.

KevinInColorado · Feb 21, 2014

Yes and the us is the 3rd or 4th largest gold producer...driven by Nevada's Carlin Trend deposits.

YumaMarc · Feb 21, 2014

I worked for several years on the Carlin Trend, and I do believe it is true. Especially considering Jarrett Canyon and Barrick Goldstrike, I think more gold is mined in one year in Nevada alone than all the '49'ers ever got TOTAL! People not familiar with mining can't fathom the size of this industry. With thousands of tons of ore processed every day, and millions of ounces of gold produced per year, the California Goldrush was no competition.

tweeta_bear · Feb 22, 2014

this is cool

tweeta_bear · Feb 23, 2014

i like copper!

Cu

tweeta_bear · Mar 1, 2014

look out east coast.

YumaMarc · Mar 1, 2014

tweeta_bear said:
i like copper! Cu

Actually, all those metals look quite collectable! :icon_thumleft:

YumaMarc · Mar 1, 2014

tweeta_bear said:
dont know if its true but it gives me hope!

I hope some of you amateur (or professional) cosmologists will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the belief that no metals with a greater atomic weight than iron were produced in the original formation of the universe. All heavy metals were created in the destruction of massive stars, and thus could only have come to this planet probably long after the core was formed. If this is true, the possibility of gold at the earth's core is nil. :dontknow:

Jason in Enid · Mar 1, 2014

YumaMarc said:
I hope some of you amateur (or professional) cosmologists will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the belief that no metals with a greater atomic weight than iron were produced in the original formation of the universe. All heavy metals were created in the destruction of massive stars, and thus could only have come to this planet probably long after the core was formed. If this is true, the possibility of gold at the earth's core is nil.

This would mean an assumption that those super-nova created atoms were nowhere near when our solar system formed. Truth is that our system could be the result of the re-collapse of nova material.

YumaMarc · Mar 1, 2014

Jason in Enid said:
This would mean an assumption that those super-nova created atoms were nowhere near when our solar system formed. Truth is that our system could be the result of the re-collapse of nova material.

I don't know, so I'll accept your reply as a reasonable hypothesis. I guess I was thinking of a time frame of our solar system being somewhere around 15 billion years old, and the Big Bang maybe three billion years or so before that. In that case, would a massive star have time to form, go through the necessary stages of it's life and self-destruct? Especially, would it have time AFTER the destruction to get the material in the required form to create our sun and aggregate our planets, including Earth? Not arguing, just thinking out loud.

tweeta_bear · Mar 2, 2014

interesting.

Tonto · Mar 2, 2014

Blake Moore said:
yes yes, worry about the economic effects that extracting the core of our planet would have, forget the fact its the source of heat, magnetic shielding from cosmic radiation, and gravity. If you really want to get rich, hit up Eros, one of the closest asteroids to earth, has something like 400 million times the remaining gold to be mined yet on earth.

I'm fairly certain that the comments about drilling the core were made in jest. Just having a few laughs. I can never resolve how scientists can make statements about what metals make up the earths core (other than iron, which is fairly obvious), or what an asteroid is made of until it hits the earth. I'm skeptical about that without core samples. If scientists could make such statements without chemical analysis from physical samples, we would need nothing more than a scientist to take a look at an outcrop, and guide us to riches untold. It's more poppycock...

G1sammons · Mar 2, 2014

Tonto said:
I'm fairly certain that the comments about drilling the core were made in jest. Just having a few laughs. I can never resolve how scientists can make statements about what metals make up the earths core (other than iron, which is fairly obvious), or what an asteroid is made of until it hits the earth. I'm skeptical about that without core samples. If scientists could make such statements without chemical analysis from physical samples, we would need nothing more than a scientist to take a look at an outcrop, and guide us to riches untold. It's more poppycock...

I don't know all the in and outs of it but they can tell a lot more than we think by vapor testing a volcano. And looking at what pukes up out of them ... While it may not give the true amount of what's down there they can tell you a general percentage from the composition .... Besides the value of pulling something from that far in the earth would be worth a lot more than the gold you could ever recover ... Just the know how would make ya pretty wealthy .....

tweeta_bear · Mar 2, 2014

another mind blower!

Tonto · Mar 4, 2014

I agree, but how does that translate to the mineral/chemical composition of an asteroid? I'm just saying that some of the statements that are made by scientists are theories based on known facts coupled with an educated guess. I'm just skeptical about some of those "theories". Even geologists must have chemical analyses done to properly identify the make up of some rocks. When politicians make statements like "37 million people don't have health insurance", I'd like to know more about how they arrive at that number. I suggest there are at least 37 million people that believe what the politician said with no evidence to support it. It seems like the same thing to me....

G1sammons · Mar 5, 2014

Tonto said:
I agree, but how does that translate to the mineral/chemical composition of an asteroid? I'm just saying that some of the statements that are made by scientists are theories based on known facts coupled with an educated guess. I'm just skeptical about some of those "theories". Even geologists must have chemical analyses done to properly identify the make up of some rocks. When politicians make statements like "37 million people don't have health insurance", I'd like to know more about how they arrive at that number. I suggest there are at least 37 million people that believe what the politician said with no evidence to support it. It seems like the same thing to me....

well it's a educated guess . They can get
Some info from light bouncing off it
And the calculating it's mass . It limits the element make up and then you just add hope

and dreams