Talk:Iron catastrophe

Catastrophe
Why call it a catastrophe? What's catastrophic about this occurrence? 204.52.215.107 06:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

the denser iron
"the denser iron, held in the outer layers, sank" what was actually holding it in the outer layers? Luca Lesinigo (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The early solar system consisted of an assortment of dust that accumulated in, essentially, random ways. Remnants of this can be found in chondritic asteroids.  They are often referred to as 'rubble piles' for this reason.  They're just a collection of stuff.  Since that 'stuff' is solid, the heavier and lighter components don't separate out.


 * The Iron Catastrophe defines the point at which gravitational heating, radioactive heating, tidal heating, or other sources, become great enough to melt some of the 'siderophile' elements, like Iron and Nickel. Since they are now liquid, they will seep in between other materials.


 * At this point it gets complicated. The 'stuff' has a certain amount of energy related to its mass and its distance from the gravitational center.  As it moves toward that center, that energy is mostly turned into heat.  The heavier the element and the farther it falls, the more heat is generated.  Since Iron and Nickel are much heavier than Silicon or Oxygen and they are sinking all the way to the center, the result is a lot of generated heat.  That increase in heat is enough to melt much of the rest of the material, creating a molten planet.

Why it's called a catastrophe
again? --99.163.48.162 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always assumed "catastrophe" was meant in the mathematical sense, as in the "catastrophe theory" page on Wikipedia, basically a sudden dramatic change in a system. But I could be talking complete bollocks. 217.37.50.66 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly right. Catastrophe implies rapid change, but doesn't really determine whether that change is good or bad.  Indeed, in terms of Geology, there is no good or bad.  Earthquakes are geologic catastrophes even if no damage occurs to humans or even any living thing.  To be fair, if life evolved on the early, non-differentiated Earth, the Iron Catastrophe would have been an extremely traumatic event to live through (or die in, as the case would more likely have been). aremisasling (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How long did this "catastrophe" take? Overnight? 500 million years? How catastrophic would an event be if it took 500 million years? Sounds like they used "catastrophe" to imply that it killed everything, you know, in the sense that when it occurred life was already on Earth? This article does not explain anything in rational terms.Wavyinfinity (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Date
The article says the Iron Catastrophe occurred 500 Million Years after the formation of the Earth. I was rather confused by this at first, and went looking for more info, because everyone seems to agree that the Moon was formed after the Iron Catastrophe, yet the Moon creation date is always listed much earlier, around 30-50 Million Years into the Earth's history. This was the first source I could find that reconciled the two satisfactorily. I guess I am hesitant to edit until someone who should know more about this than me comes along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.147.142 (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this timing doesn't sound like a widely supported view. --JWB (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Lower melting points and heavier material?
Surely people are wondering why the iron (being lighter than gold, copper, silver, etc.) would comprise the center when gold, silver, copper, etc. are heavier and have a lower melting point? It seems like the iron catastrophe was invented by 1800's scientists.Wavyinfinity (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the atmosphere?
In the present version of the article: "this event was necessary for life to emerge and evolve on Earth: without it, Earth's atmosphere would have been, as on Mars, stripped away long before the present epoch." What does this mean? --Alexey Muranov (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think i've found the answer: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/ --Alexey Muranov (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)