Those are interesting observations.
My chemistry is elementary. But, I'll venture:
CH4 production is not always exothermic. If your base materials are H20 and C02, the process is actually endothermic, mostly because of how much energy H20 and C02 require to separate. (4 H2O + 2 C02 => 2 CH4 + 4 O2)
If you figure that half the mineral formations are exothermic and perhaps "cook" the other endothermic reactions then the net result is simply a transformation of basic elements into the spectrum of mineral amalgamations.
And what about the scenarios where the water is not produced from the 2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O reaction? What if water was produced as a result of different reactions?
Yes, I imagine the heat would power some endothermic reactions in the vicinity
.
Ok, but maybe not as hot as you are making it out.
Maybe because our modern sciences are specialists rather than generalists. The geologist would rather leave the nuances to a chemist for the explanation.
I think examining this line of rational the way you are leads to very interesting conclusions about he nature of matter.
Well, I don't disagree, but really those ideas are pretty conventional. To suppose that material is created very far away and a long long time ago is a reoccurring tune. Even in context of Earths history.
And really, studies at CERN and nuclear reactor studies to suggest heavy nuclei may form in special artificial circumstances... You mention.
... very hard to do in the current state of our earthly environment.
We really don't know that the temperature of the inside of a star is. 20 million K may be a result that is based on a broken theory, and I think we can agree there are a lot of broken theories in circulation.
Um, dissolved salt.
Sea water has a lot of other stuff dissolved, I know. A cubic mile of sea water is supposed to hold a few ounces of gold, apparently.
ok
Indeed. But it depends on what is being eroded. My support of electrical erosion of rocky land formations is not because of an efficiency analysis, but rather the astronomical amount of energy that would have been discharged. Even copper could be vaporized with enough energy as it is not a perfect conductor.
A bullet from a rifle, copper bar => a hole <shrug/> I can't believe I wrote that!
From time to time, we see what happens when a huge tree is struck by lightening. And those lightening bolt that destroy trees are just minor shifts in an equilibrium already stabilized for at least 2k years.
When I make mention of an electric bolt of astronomic proportion, imagine this: An electric arc composed of up to 1000 pairs of twisted filaments, each filament maybe 5 meters wide, that strikes the surface of the planet for a period of 6 months continuously... Now imagine that moving across a barren terrain. It will leave a huge gouge. There may have been hundreds of these in an event that is imagined in the proto-Saturn theory. Mars would have been more intense shocked due to proximity with other bodies...
Those are pretty conventional theories.
X-Ray or gamma ray sources are more likely where galaxies are "born".
The underlines part is the the central thesis for your planetary formation theory, as I understand right? Your reasoning is then in observation of thermal energy as per the exothermic chemical reactions of the mineral composition of the astronomical planetary body?
Ok.
By "single star's evolution" do you mean the sun?
If your theory is correct, you would expect the planet to have been hotter in the past, and in the future it will become colder over time. You would expect the crust to have been thinner in the past, and you expect the crust to become thicker in the future. Eventually all tectonic plates will "freeze" together and volcanoes will become less and less frequent. Perhaps like the way we find the Moon?
Perhaps you may also reason that rainfall will slowly decrease as less and less water mass evaporates into the air, causing less availability for vapor to condense as rain?