Sciencemadness Discussion Board

God should've blessed Earth with more precious metals

fusso - 2-5-2019 at 05:02

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elem...
The rarest metals in earth crust are the PGMs, Ag, Au and Re. If God had blessed us with a lot more (say, at least the abundance of Sn) of them, things made of them like computers, cata cons and jewelry would be much cheaper, more could be used everywhere, research would advance quicker and we could afford more of them for either element collection or experiments.

opfromthestart - 2-5-2019 at 06:56

I doubt jewelry would be less expensive, it would probably just be made of even rarer and more expensive materials.
The element collection aspect would be a lot better though.

fusso - 2-5-2019 at 07:11

Quote: Originally posted by opfromthestart  
I doubt jewelry would be less expensive, it would probably just be made of even rarer and more expensive materials.
The element collection aspect would be a lot better though.
I mean, jewelry made of these metals.

mayko - 2-5-2019 at 07:25

Historically, the function of jewelry was not just to look pretty but also to store wealth in a manner that is portable, stable, and independent of property law (eg, a woman who could not formally hold the title to land, could still acquire informal wealth on her person).
Inexpensive jewelry defeats this purpose.

Speaking of purpose, aren't threads like this the purpose of whimsy?

fusso - 2-5-2019 at 07:33

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
Historically, the function of jewelry was not just to look pretty but also to store wealth in a manner that is portable, stable, and independent of property law (eg, a woman who could not formally hold the title to land, could still acquire informal wealth on her person).
Inexpensive jewelry defeats this purpose.

Speaking of purpose, aren't threads like this the purpose of whimsy?

But the pros of having more precious metals on earth would definitely outweigh the cons.
Don't you want cheaper computers, cars and chemicals?
And I want more responses so I didn't put this in whimsy.

[Edited on 190502 by fusso]

Ubya - 2-5-2019 at 13:08

jewelry is made of precious metals to give importance. you could make a ring out of brass, the difference in color is not that much from gold, but still if you want to merry, you buy a gold ring, not a brass one. beuty it's an important factor in jewelry, but mostly is the symbol of wearing something expensive, that has value.
if gold was as common as dirt, you would probably wear brass or bronze

RogueRose - 2-5-2019 at 15:17

Not all wedding rings are gold, they can be anything the person wants. I've seen some really unique rings that the person made for their wife.



The reason gold has such a high value is specifically b/c it is rare, not so much b/c it's other properties though those are very nice

CharlieA - 2-5-2019 at 16:43

So, if I understand you correctly, you want to make precious metals common (cheap), right.

clearly_not_atara - 2-5-2019 at 16:50

The high-electronegativity metals -- including PGM, Ag, Au, Re, Hg -- sank into the core during Earth's formation because they did not easily form low-density oxides and instead remained as the high-density pure metal. However, this high electronegativity is also responsible for their tendency to form weakly polarized covalent bonds with organic species which undergo complex reactions, whereas other metals form highly polarized bonds that mostly just act as weaker versions of Grignard reagents. High electronegativity also results in a low tendency to be oxidized, which is necessary for some electronic components.

There are (relatively) high concentrations of "precious" metals in asteroids, which unlike Earth, are not sorted by density.

[Edited on 3-5-2019 by clearly_not_atara]

Σldritch - 3-5-2019 at 00:40

Don't worry i am sure God will send mankind a nice PGM rich astroid soon enough if we just keep doing what we do best.

draculic acid69 - 3-5-2019 at 01:03

Price of asteroids far exceeds any pgm's you'll get from them.more rare too.and god doesn't exist.

j_sum1 - 3-5-2019 at 01:22

Disagree DA.
If a 20 kg meteorite of 90% platinum fell in my back yard, I would be pretty quick to cash it in for its metal content if I couldn't find a cashed-up meteorite collector.
And I'd be thanking God for what he had dished up.

Sulaiman - 3-5-2019 at 03:08

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
... If a 20 kg meteorite of 90% platinum fell in my back yard, I would be ...

... vapourised
Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
And I'd be thanking God for what he had dished up...

... in person

j_sum1 - 3-5-2019 at 03:32

haha.

But seriously, never heard of a dark flight meteorite?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIIzckUv2Mo
Pause just before 18 seconds and go frame by frame (use the "." key.) It is on screen for about 7 frames.
https://www.universetoday.com/110963/norwegian-skydiver-almo...

I reckon one of those landing in my yard would make a bit of a dent but I'd collect it ok.



[Edited on 3-5-2019 by j_sum1]

draculic acid69 - 3-5-2019 at 04:07

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
Disagree DA.
If a 20 kg meteorite of 90% platinum fell in my back yard, I would be pretty quick to cash it in for its metal content if I couldn't find a cashed-up meteorite collector.
And I'd be thanking God for what he had dished up.



Tousche jsum1.tousche

fusso - 3-5-2019 at 04:41

Hence I think God shouldve blasted earth with *much more* small precious-metal-rich meteorites after earth crust had solidified so they wont dissolve into the mantle/core.

Ubya - 3-5-2019 at 06:59

Quote: Originally posted by fusso  
Hence I think God shouldve blasted earth with *much more* small precious-metal-rich meteorites after earth crust had solidified so they wont dissolve into the mantle/core.

Don't pray something you could regret.
meteorite shower wipes life on Earth. the ground is now shiny with platinum

fusso - 3-5-2019 at 07:15

Quote: Originally posted by fusso  
Hence I think God shouldve blasted earth with *much more* small precious-metal-rich meteorites after earth crust had solidified so they wont dissolve into the mantle/core.
Plus, before any multicellular organisms appeared.

MrWonderful - 3-5-2019 at 12:09

Quote: Originally posted by draculic acid69  
god doesn't exist.


The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so.

- The Devils Delusion by David Berlinski, page xiv

"Religion's power to console," Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, "doesn't make it true." Perhaps this is so, but only a man who has spent a good deal of time snoring on the down of plenty could be quite so indifferent to the consolations of religion, wherever and however they may be found. One wonders, in any case why religion has the power to console and why it has had this power over the course of human history. - page 11, 12

p 22 A Shockingly Happy Picture by Excess Deaths

First World War 15 million
Soviet Union, Stalin's Regime 20 million
Second World War 55 million
People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong 40 million
Congo Free State 8 million
Russian Civil War 9 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians 1.5 million
Kinshasa, Congo 3.8 million
Second Indochina War 3.5 million
Korean War 2.8 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge 1.65 million
[Two more pages of death statistics follow]

p 26 What Hitler did not believe, and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.

p 27 Hitler's Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was "motivated by an ethic that prided itself in being scientific." (From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany)

Christopher Hitchens is prepared to denounce the Vatican for the ease with which it diplomatically accommodated Hitler, but about Hitler, the Holocaust, or the Nazis themselves he has nothing to say. This is an odd omission for a writer who believes that religion poisons everything.

clearly_not_atara - 3-5-2019 at 12:25

Quote: Originally posted by draculic acid69  
Price of asteroids


Asteroids are free, the only thing you have to pay for is spaceflight. Which is expensive, but it's a lot less expensive than it was fifty years ago, and it'll keep getting less expensive.

fusso - 3-5-2019 at 12:59

Quote: Originally posted by Σldritch  
Don't worry i am sure God will send mankind a nice PGM rich astroid soon enough if we just keep doing what we do best.
God shouldve did it million yrs ago, not now nor in the future.

MrWonderful - 3-5-2019 at 14:04

Quote: Originally posted by fusso  
[/rquote]God shouldve did it million yrs ago, not now nor in the future.


If ONLY God were as smart as you are. If ONLY.......


"A very great deal more truth can become known than can be proven." ...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feinman, quantum physicist

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

fusso - 3-5-2019 at 14:28

@MrW can you not add content that is irrelevant to the main point (precious metals discussion) of the thread?

j_sum1 - 3-5-2019 at 14:52

What a delighfully divergent thread. It's Saturday morning. I can waffle a bit.

I find the premis very interesting: that somehow God is obligated to respond to fusso's whim. fusso lacks the ability and so God should have done it retroactively. That is a bizarre kind of theology.

I think that a change in the distribution of the elements would change the way that we value them. If Pt mines were common then sure we would use platinum a lot more. But we would think that was normal and Pt would not be valued the same. Swap the abundance and distribution of Pt and Cu and suddenly you have a very different world.


Meteorites are common enough but a real dog to find. Hence the perceived value. Their composition is fascinating and holds a certain attraction. And let's face it: a few kg of rhodium would really change my life. The rock-hounds can have any old chunk of astrolith that hurls through the atmosphere. I want the ones that contain useful or profitable material. As to whether asteroid mining will ever be profitable. I seriously doubt it. Space is big. Energy requirements to get there and back are always going to be prohibitive. Grams per cubic metre and the oceans beat space for any element. Dilute extraction is a far more feasible proposition IMO.

The exception would be if we discovered concentrations of useful minerals on the moon. Damn shame it is effectively a mineral desert.


The knee-jerk assertion that there is no God, I always find curious. Physics points us to the existence of entities outside of the physical universe. The Big Bang Singularity, the vacuum field precursor (the "nothing" "before" the big bang), the agents that cause uniformity across the universe at distances beyond information travel. These are but some of the things outside the physical universe that are believed to exist. Add to that dark matter, dark energy and speculation on multiverses which has become popular. The concensus is pretty strong that there do exist powerful agents outside of the universe as we understand it.
The open question is whether any of those agents could be both personal and intelligent. There is no reason to exclude this possibility and many good reasons to include this possibility. It is not an unscientific proposition as many people assert.

Sorry, Mr Wonderful. TLDR. I will come back to it. After pancakes.

Vomaturge - 3-5-2019 at 15:41

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  

I think that a change in the distribution of the elements would change the way that we value them. If Pt mines were common then sure we would use platinum a lot more. But we would think that was normal and Pt would not be valued the same. Swap the abundance and distribution of Pt and Cu and suddenly you have a very different world.


This would agree with historical experience. There once was a metal which had that happen to it... In reverse. It's compounds were always abundant (as opposed to the platinum group metals which are rare, and found as native metal), but extracting it in elemental form took tremendous amounts of energy and dangerous and expensive reagents, so it cost more than gold. Then a cheap extraction process was invented. It's supposed value dropped, but it's unusual chemical and physical properties (most of which are the opposite of platinum group metals, incidentally) were finally put to good use.

[Edited on 3-5-2019 by Vomaturge]

j_sum1 - 3-5-2019 at 16:02

Hmmm.
Do the same for titanium as was done for aluminium. Now there's a patent worth having....



(With a pgm-rich byproduct to satisfy the op.)

XeonTheMGPony - 3-5-2019 at 16:35

Why are we expecting non existent beings to be doing any thing?

Rockets and space exploration are real, and work because they are real, the entire premise of this thread is deeply flawed and based on a broken concept of demonstrable reality.

MrWonderful - 3-5-2019 at 16:56

Quote: Originally posted by XeonTheMGPony  
Why are we expecting non existent beings to be doing any thing?



OF COURSE!!
Nothing made everything and it all turned out SO SWELL, didn't it.

Nothing is a genius!

A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc&t=620s

XeonTheMGPony - 3-5-2019 at 17:07

Take you meds PHD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTDBq7ko5Y

Pssss: Your glaring ignorance is showing*

MrWonderful - 3-5-2019 at 17:35

Quote: Originally posted by XeonTheMGPony  
Take you (sic) meds PHD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTDBq7ko5Y

Pssss (sic) : Your glaring ignorance is showing*


"Your (sic) glaring ignorance is showing." Pretty funny.

Pssss is air leaking out of a hole in a tire.
You meant to type "Pssst" but you didn't.

You also meant to type "take YOUR meds" but you screwed that up too.

The condescension, the pretension, the hubris of atheists is insufferable.



“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

j_sum1 - 3-5-2019 at 19:30

[Moderator hat is on.]

Ok. Mr Wonderful.
You have been here a day and you are already managing to irritate people.
How about you sit back and get used to the place before you stream another 23 posts.

To be clear, it is not the content of what you are saying that is problematic -- I happen to be a fan of John Lennox myself.
It is the manner in which you are communicating which is out of sync with the way that this board operates. We don't argue by firing assertions at one another. Nor do we do it by lining up pithy cliches and pretending that they are cogent arguments by themselves. Rather we argue by presenting evidence and using a system of logic developing a chain of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. For clarity we may state the conclusion first and then show how it is arrived, but the logical reasoning remains the same. Both the premises we state and the logical steps must be open to challenge and a reasonable discussion allows time for this before making more assertions.

You will neither convince anyone nor endear yourself to anyone if you continue like this. As much as I (or anyone) might concur with your position, I will not hesitate to send this and the Science lying thread to detritus and issue a ban on this username.


(For clarity, the statements made upthread concerning meds and PHD infer that you have been likened to a recalcitrant troll that parades here from time to time. I doubt you are the same person but you should recognise that tolerance for hyperbolic junk is very low around here.)


[Moderator hat is off.]

MrWonderful - 3-5-2019 at 19:56

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
[Moderator hat is on.]

Ok. Mr Wonderful.
You have been here a day and you are already managing to irritate people.
How about you sit back and get used to the place before you stream another 23 posts.


Irritating people by pointing out how one can lie with a graph?
But nobody was irritated by the vile profanity of one of your regulars, hissingnoise? Nobody was irritated by the bullying of everyone else?
I responded to one personal attack after another. How petty of all of them. How absolutely petty and you have not a word to say to your team of bullies who are triggered. Why don't I buy them all some coloring books, crayons and Play Doh.
Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
To be clear, it is not the content of what you are saying that is problematic -- I happen to be a fan of John Lennox myself.
It is the manner in which you are communicating which is out of sync with the way that this board operates. We don't argue by firing assertions at one another.

Nor do we do it by lining up pithy cliches and pretending that they are cogent arguments by themselves. Rather we argue by presenting evidence and using a system of logic developing a chain of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. For clarity we may state the conclusion first and then show how it is arrived, but the logical reasoning remains the same. Both the premises we state and the logical steps must be open to challenge and a reasonable discussion allows time for this before making more assertions.

You will neither convince anyone nor endear yourself to anyone if you continue like this. As much as I (or anyone) might concur with your position, I will not hesitate to send this and the Science lying thread to detritus and issue a ban on this username.



Your loyal members asserted repeatedly that I am uneducated. You have no problem with such personal attacks.
How is it that YOU are the very first to use the word "concur" and even then, only half-heartedly?

I will not hesitate to avoid this hate-filled soup of madness you have appropriately named. There haven't been two people here I would wish to communicate with. You're all a bunch of Antifa hacks from what I have seen.

ciao and have a nice Madness Cesspool.

XeonTheMGPony - 3-5-2019 at 20:28

guess we had a visit from reddit user from r/ chem.

I remain convinced this is yet another attempt from phd, the outlandish assertion and claims devoid of logic and reason.

As the Brits say good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Edited on 4-5-2019 by XeonTheMGPony]

ok bed time now, will see remainder of fire works in the morning


[Edited on 4-5-2019 by XeonTheMGPony]

j_sum1 - 3-5-2019 at 21:13

Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  

Irritating people by pointing out how one can lie with a graph?
We know how to lie with a graph. Yours was an unremarkable example. That was a comment on technique not content.
Quote:

But nobody was irritated by the vile profanity of one of your regulars, hissingnoise? Nobody was irritated by the bullying of everyone else?

Don't change the subject so that you can play the victim. You either have a defensible point or you don't.
Quote:

I responded to one personal attack after another. How petty of all of them. How absolutely petty and you have not a word to say to your team of bullies who are triggered. Why don't I buy them all some coloring books, crayons and Play Doh.

Ditto. Ad hominem does not an argument make.
You are inconsistent when you complain of attacks and do the same yourself.
It is unrealistic to deliberately provoke and then complain at the reaction.
Quote:

Your loyal members asserted repeatedly that I am uneducated. You have no problem with such personal attacks.

I am not in favour of personal attacks. But I will deal with the bigger problem first.
Your communication methodology does not befit a scientifically literate person. If you are educated, maybe you could demonstrate a higher standard of rigour.
Quote:

How is it that YOU are the very first to use the word "concur" and even then, only half-heartedly?

And you know I am half-hearted because... ?
Read my posting history on this and related topics.
Quote:

I will not hesitate to avoid this hate-filled soup of madness you have appropriately named. There haven't been two people here I would wish to communicate with. You're all a bunch of Antifa hacks from what I have seen.

ciao and have a nice Madness Cesspool.

Perjorative and unwarranted.
Don't slam the door as you leave.
Mind if I snib the lock?
Detritus + banned.

j_sum1 - 3-5-2019 at 21:23

On reflection, this can be returned to whimsy. There are things that can be discussed here now the troll is dismissed.
I closed the other threads started by the troll.

https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=14...

[Edited on 4-5-2019 by j_sum1]

fusso - 4-5-2019 at 04:12

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
On reflection, this can be returned to whimsy. There are things that can be discussed here now the troll is dismissed.
I closed the other threads started by the troll.
Troll removed so he cant ruin the thread anymore, why cant this remain in the public part? I want this in public part so others can also join the discussion!

[Edited on 190504 by fusso]

j_sum1 - 4-5-2019 at 04:27

Ok. Miscellaneous then.
I forgot where this thing started.

FTR, I think clearlynotatara has given the most precise and useful answer to the original question.

XeonTheMGPony - 4-5-2019 at 04:38

given the assertion of a non falsifiable being/mythology, I think whimsy was the correct area.

Heptylene - 4-5-2019 at 05:47

I think we are blessed to have iron and aluminum among the most abundant metals on earth.

Aluminum is among the lightest usable metal along with magnesium and beryllium. Lighter metals are alkali and alkaline earth metals, which are too reactive for any use as building materials. Magnesium is borderline vis-a-vis reactivity, and beryllium is toxic. Without aluminum we might not have planes! Or they might be made of titanium, which is twice the density, and difficult to obtain in metallic form.

Also we are lucky that iron can be smelted easily. It could have been too reactive to be reduced by charcoal. Or it could have melted at 2000 °C, a temperature much more difficult to reach with a simple charcoal furnace. There could have been no iron age!

I could go on with silicon, but I think I made my point: our world could have been much less hospitable than it is, and our technology could be much less advanced than it is, if it wasn't for a few "lucky coincidences".

EDIT:typo

[Edited on 4-5-2019 by Heptylene]

fusso - 4-5-2019 at 06:20

Quote: Originally posted by Heptylene  
I think we are blessed to have iron and aluminum among the most abundant metals on earth.

Aluminum is among the lightest usable metal along with magnesium and beryllium. Lighter metals are alkali and alkaline earth metals, which are too reactive for any use as building materials. Magnesium is borderline vis-a-vis reactivity, and beryllium is toxic. Without aluminum we might not have planes! Or they might be made of titanium, which is twice the density, and difficult to obtain in metallic form.

Also we are lucky that iron can be smelted easily. It could have been too reactive to be reduced by charcoal. Or it could have melted at 2000 °C, a temperature much more difficult to reach with a simple charcoal furnace. There could have been no iron age!

I could go on with silicon, but I think I made my point: our world could have been much less hospitable than it is, and our technology could be much less advanced than it is, if it wasn't for a few "lucky coincidences".

EDIT:typo

[Edited on 4-5-2019 by Heptylene]
Unfortunately, Fe rusts too easily. Hence PGMs would be a better choice as they're very unreactive but not as soft as Ag & Au.

j_sum1 - 4-5-2019 at 06:32

You underestimate Fe, fusso.

It is less dense and stronger than pgms.
Corrosion can be managed by various means.
And its properties can be engineered via alloying and heat treatment in a way that is unmatched by any other metal. (Over 250 different kinds of steel in a modern jet engine.)

I am not in a hurry to adopt pgms for structural use.

fusso - 4-5-2019 at 07:55

PGMs doesnt need to be in structures. They can be in car cata cons and org synth catalysts. Chemicals & drugs produced from cheaper catalysts will definitely be cheaper.

clearly_not_atara - 4-5-2019 at 09:14

Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  
Hmmm.
Do the same for titanium as was done for aluminium. Now there's a patent worth having....

It’s been done, but nobody can agree who owns the patent rights and the scientists who developed the technology took their flasks and went home.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16555686

Truly a modern comedy of errors!

Re: above — the nuclear instability of beryllium is annoying. It’s far superior structurally and chemically to Fe and Al, but if beryllium-8 were stable, carbon would be much less abundant. We might not exist at all to take advantage of it.

[Edited on 4-5-2019 by clearly_not_atara]

fusso - 5-5-2019 at 09:53

Assume there's 1kg of PGM falling onto earth evenly every second (assume particle size is optimal so they cant hurt any life), since 4B yrs ago. Now we'd have 1.26e14T (2.11e-6% of earth mass) of PGMs to use today! (current estimated reserve is 3e10T)