Real Science Radio on the Origin of Trans-Neptunian Objects

One Ugly Christian · Oct 2, 2014

gcthomas said:
Welcome back OUC! It is nice to here thoughtful opinions on this thread.

The magma that erupts from volcanoes producing steam has come from the upper mantle when that rock absorbs water from the ocean trench, which subducts sea water along with the oceanic plate rock and sediment. The water lowers the melting point so you get wet, molten rock melting its way up to the surface.

You're right that the presence of deep water was not a popular idea 50 yrs ago, but I remember being told 25 years ago when I studied Geology that it was expected to be found.

Thank you for this.

I didn't make my point very clear on volcanic eruptions. Scientists are saying that much of the water produced in these eruptions are from much too deep to have come from subduction. It was that fact along with the finding of materials they believed came from very deep in the earth's surface which were found to contain water which prompted the theories that there was water trapped in rocks as much as hundreds of kilometers down. These theories and the finding of oceans of water possibly as deep as 600 miles do not seem to comport with an earth that was completely molten not once but twice as molten rock squeeze almost all water out.

Stripe · Oct 2, 2014

One Ugly Christian said:
There have been small pools of water found under the Tibetan mountains and there is speculation that there are pools under one place in the Pacific ocean but they don't constitute the volume needed to confirm Brown's predictions.

What volume was predicted and what volume was found? :idunno:

gcthomas · Oct 2, 2014

Stripe said:
What volume was predicted and what volume was found? :idunno:

NO pools of water have been found. Walt thinks there are great voids under the mountains filled with water. The evidence, as you have seen, says there isn't.

Stripe · Oct 2, 2014

gcthomas said:
NO pools of water have been found. Walt thinks there are great voids under the mountains filled with water. The evidence, as you have seen, says there isn't.

The evidence, you great imbecile, backs up the prediction.

Prediction: Water under mountains.
Evidence: Water under mountains.

If you were the slightest bit interested in a rational discussion, you would be looking to discover how much water is there and its distribution.

gcthomas · Oct 2, 2014

Stripe said:
The evidence, you great imbecile, backs up the prediction.

Prediction: Water under mountains.
Evidence: Water under mountains.

If you were the slightest bit interested in a rational discussion, you would be looking to discover how much water is there and its distribution.

Try reading Stripe. I will hurt your head less with practice:

From Walt's book:

As mountains buckled upward, water remaining under the plates tended to fill large voids. Some pooled water should still be in cracked and contorted layers of rock under mountains...

PREDICTION 1: Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled saltwater.

Could you point out where having slightly damp rocks fits in with his idea of voids with pooled water?

Stripe · Oct 2, 2014

gcthomas said:
...slightly damp rocks...

:darwinsm:

:mock: desperate evolutionists.

The Barbarian · Oct 2, 2014

For the umpteenth time, Stipe is trying to dodge. The "proof" of "voids" filled with water under mountains, turns out to rule out such imaginary pools. Apparently, he never read the paper at all.

Stripe · Oct 2, 2014

gcthomas said:
You are right, but this appears to be a report on the same paper that I was discussing with Stripe and is the one that Walt Brown mistakenly presented in his book as the evidence for water filled voids under Tibet.

That you think the ringwoodite report has anything to do with the abstract I shared shows you have zero understanding of what is involved in investigation into the Earth's interior.

Blabbing on about "damp rocks" also shows you have no appreciation for what is required to prompt a researcher to posit the existence of water where plate tectonics theory would not have predicted it to appear.

What you are doing is going blah blah blah, desperately trying to throw mud at anything and everything a creationist suggests and waiting for something to come up to escape.

Quit being a waste of bandwidth. :up:

One Ugly Christian · Oct 2, 2014

Stripe said:
What volume was predicted and what volume was found? :idunno:

The link I provided refers to the belief that since diamonds that come from deep within the earth have water then there's an "ocean" of water down there. I was also referring to what has now been confirmed; that there is 3 to 5 times the volume in all the world's oceans. Didn't you provide a link on this tread (or was it dc) stating that 1% of the volume of the water under the Tibetan mountains is in pools?

gcthomas · Oct 2, 2014

One Ugly Christian said:
Didn't you provide a link on this tread (or was it dc) stating that 1% of the volume of the water under the Tibetan mountains is in pools?

Not quite. It was that 1% of the rock under Northern Tibet is water, squeezed in between the crystal grains a few molecules here, a few molecules of water there.

No pools.

But if you extracted and collected the water into pools, then it would, apparently, if the results were replicated around the whole world and not just under the special case of the Himalayan Plateau, amount to more than the world's oceans contain.

gcthomas · Oct 2, 2014

Stripe said:
That you think the ringwoodite report has anything to do with the abstract I shared shows you have zero understanding of what is involved in investigation into the Earth's interior.

No. I wasn't referring to rinwoodite, as you know because I kept referring to the report that you and Walt presented as evidence. The Tibet one.

Stripe said:
Blabbing on about "damp rocks" also shows you have no appreciation for what is required to prompt a researcher to posit the existence of water where plate tectonics theory would not have predicted it to appear.

So Walt claimed voids filled with pools of water. The research showed none. Yet you still cling to the idea without evidence.

Stripe said:
What you are doing is going blah blah blah, desperately trying to throw mud at anything and everything a creationist suggests and waiting for something to come up to escape.

Quit being a waste of bandwidth. :up:

Not any creationist. Just you and Walt. And only because you claim the most rediculous things and feel compelled to lie and misrepresent all the way.

Stripe · Oct 2, 2014

One Ugly Christian said:
The link I provided refers to the belief that since diamonds that come from deep within the earth have water then there's an "ocean" of water down there. I was also referring to what has now been confirmed; that there is 3 to 5 times the volume in all the world's oceans. Didn't you provide a link on this tread (or was it dc) stating that 1% of the volume of the water under the Tibetan mountains is in pools?

The ringwoodite report is of little use in examining the prediction Dr Brown made.

I provided a link that showed there is a trend of higher conductivity beneath Tibet.

There is no way to use this information to determine any volumes. The paper outlines how different amounts of water, melted rock and metal could all produce the numbers that are observed.

gcthomas · Oct 2, 2014

Stripe said:
The ringwoodite report is of little use in examining the prediction Dr Brown made.

I provided a link that showed there is a trend of higher conductivity beneath Tibet.

There is no way to use this information to determine any volumes. The paper outlines how different amounts of water, melted rock and metal could all produce the numbers that are observed.

And I showed a paper from the same journal (linked from your paper's page) that showed that the region was solid rock, with no voids, no pools and so nothing like what Walt predicted. Just damp rock.

One Ugly Christian · Oct 2, 2014

gcthomas said:
Not quite. It was that 1% of the rock under Northern Tibet is water, squeezed in between the crystal grains a few molecules here, a few molecules of water there.

No pools.

Sorry, sick today (no, not "just in the head"

)

I'm sure you're correct but I was sure I read someplace years back that pools were found in a few place. I must be wrong because I sure can't find that link now.

Question for you and evolutionists: What will you say if and when microbes are found on comets and/or asteroids? You wouldn't think they evolved in outer space or that they were left over from whatever formed the dust cloud at the beginning of our solar system. So, where could they come from?

The Barbarian · Oct 2, 2014

Not quite. It was that 1% of the rock under Northern Tibet is water, squeezed in between the crystal grains a few molecules here, a few molecules of water there.

No pools.

But if you extracted and collected the water into pools, then it would, apparently, if the results were replicated around the whole world and not just under the special case of the Himalayan Plateau, amount to more than the world's oceans contain.

Hardly surprising. The oceans are only a few kilometers deep. But the crust under the continents is up to 40 kilometers deep. And many, many minerals contain water chemically combined (water of crystallization). Calcium sulfate, for example, contains about 20% water, tied up in the crystal.

gcthomas · Oct 3, 2014

The Barbarian said:
Calcium sulfate, for example, contains about 20% water, tied up in the crystal.

20%? That must constitute Walt's tiny little pools! Stripe was right?!

:chuckle:

One Ugly Christian · Oct 4, 2014

Stripe said:
The ringwoodite report is of little use in examining the prediction Dr Brown made.

I provided a link that showed there is a trend of higher conductivity beneath Tibet.

There is no way to use this information to determine any volumes. The paper outlines how different amounts of water, melted rock and metal could all produce the numbers that are observed.

Some researchers believe it likely that there are "pools of water" which "sweated" out of ringwoodite. Planetary scientist Steve Jacobsen says, “Once the water is released, much of it may become trapped there in the transition zone.” [Science] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1265.short

Brown's theory is that the pools (fountains) were formed during creation week but it would take millions of years for the massive volume of water needed for Noah's Flood to "sweat" out of rocks. Moreover, Brown's model of the earth's crust suggest that the water trapped before the flood was just above the basalt layer and below the granite. As the deepest well drilled is only about 7 miles and this layer is 20 to 30 miles deep it is likely that Brown's pools are there waiting to be found. Unfortunately, it is also likely that almost all of the pools present before the flood were completely drained when the "fountains of the great deep burst forth." If this is so then any water remaining would be "few and far between" and may never be found.

I have to conclude that gc and barbarian are correct in saying that what has been found (or speculated to be likely) does not support Brown's prediction.

The Barbarian · Oct 4, 2014

No pooled water, but lots of water of crystallization. If you looked at the rock, you wouldn't even know there was water in it.

Stripe · Oct 4, 2014

One Ugly Christian said:
Some researchers believe it likely that there are "pools of water" which "sweated" out of ringwoodite. Planetary scientist Steve Jacobsen says, “Once the water is released, much of it may become trapped there in the transition zone.” [Science] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6189/1265.short

Doesn't seem very likely, but then, they do start with a widly different set of assumptions. And, like I said, the ringwoodite observations say very little that might help with what we are discussing.

It is also likely that almost all of the pools present before the flood were completely drained when the "fountains of the great deep burst forth." If this is so then any water remaining would be "few and far between" and may never be found.

The "pools" were created as a result of the sliding hydroplates. Thus they should be within about 30km of the surface (though still generally unreachable and very difficult to spot) and fairly prevalent beneath mountain ranges.

I have to conclude that ... what has been found does not support Brown's prediction.

Which part?

One Ugly Christian · Oct 4, 2014

Stripe said:
What volume was predicted and what volume was found? :idunno:

One that dc quoted previously: PREDICTION 1: Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled saltwater.72 (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first published in 1980. Supercritical saltwater appears to be about 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on earth.)73

However, I can not find the references Brown is referring to from 1980. I know I've read it a long time ago but the links gc and barbarian give seem to be based on the same research/findings but more up to date. I will continue to research this but, again, have to go with the evolutionist on this one [as much as it pains me---not because I have to agree with them but because I've stated that Brown's prediction on this was accurate in numerous emails and on other forums---posts which I'll never be able to find and correct.]

Real Science Radio on the Origin of Trans-Neptunian Objects

New member

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

New member

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

New member

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

BANNED

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

New member

New member

New member

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

New member

New member

BANNED

New member

New member

BANNED

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

New member