Real Science Radio on the Origin of Trans-Neptunian Objects

[gcthomas]

And since you refuse to give examples and evidence, "nope" is sufficient refutation for your nonsense.

:darwinsm:

:mock: Desperate evolutionists.

Your newfound respect for the actual evidence didn't last long, did it Stripe? :chuckle:

... about as long as it took you to realise the evidence undermined your position. :rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

:darwinsm:

:mock: Desperate evolutionists.

 

[gcthomas]

Hey Stripe, read this from your linked evidence that supposedly supported Walt's crank claims of pools of water under the mountains:

It is unlikely that aqueous fluids are the cause of the high crustal conductivity in northern Tibet. In contrast, basaltic melt is an obvious explanation for the high conduc- tivity.

and

A layer of aqueous fluids could produce the conductance observed in Tibet with a lower fluid fraction and/or layer thickness than considered above for partial melt. For ex- ample, a layer only 1.6 km thick containing 10% of 100 S/m brine would be needed to yield the observed 10,000-S conductance. Several observations suggest that both partial melt and aqueous fluids are present in the crust of southern Tibet.

Rock with fluids bound up in them. Hardly the pools predicted. No pools anywhere are there, Stripe?

Come on, Stripe. Where are these pools that you claim are there? Walt says there are pools of water. You claim it. OUC claims it. But you can't find them can you? :loser:

 

[gcthomas]

Here is another quote, Stripe, for your edification:

Thus, the preferred explanation for the high conductance beneath Tibet is in- terconnected fluid, either partial melt or aqueous fluids present along the grain boundaries of the rock. The bulk conductivity of a fluid-bearing rock depends on the conductivity of the fluid, its geometry, and the amount of fluid.

Note the part I have made bold: the water, if it exists, is in small quantities along grain boundaries = damp rock. Not pools. Did I use short enough sentences and words? This is YOUR evidence, remember. Didn't you read it? No, of course you didn't.

Huh - creationists only like evidence when they don't have to read it. You took Walt's claims on faith, didn't you? :chuckle: You shouldn't take the word of cranks, Stripe, they make stuff up yet convince themselves they are the only honest folk around.

You have been taken in here, again.

 

[Stripe]

Pools. Pools. Pools. Not pools.

:darwinsm:

:mock: desperate evolutionists.

 

[gcthomas]

:darwinsm:

:mock: desperate evolutionists.

Here is another paper from the same journal:

Crustal flow pattern beneath the Tibetan Plateau constrained by regional Lg-wave Q tomography
Lian-Feng Zhao et al
Earth and Planetary Science Letters

Now, Lg-wave Q tomography uses transverse waves ( “Long-period Querwellen” waves). Querwellen waves are transverse waves and so can't pass through liquid.

 

[gcthomas]

Can I conclude from all the emoticons you are replying with in lieu of actual arguments that you have conceded that there is no evidence for Walt's claim of a proven prediction in this case?

Or will you keep running so your faith in Walt can be imagined to remain intact?

Come on Stripe, you claimed there was evidence but there is none presented.

Man up!

 

[gcthomas]

Stripe - cat got your tongue? Or have you conceded that you were mistaken as has become apparent to everyone else?

:mock: Stripe running away again :dog:

 

[Stripe]

Here is another paper from the same journal:Crustal flow pattern beneath the Tibetan Plateau constrained by regional Lg-wave Q tomography-Feng Zhao et alEarth and Planetary Science LettersNow, Lg-wave Q tomography uses transverse waves ( “Long-period Querwellen” waves). Querwellen waves are transverse waves and so can't pass through liquid.

Oh, wow.

:darwinsm:

You're really desperate, aren't you?

:mock: geekythomas.

 

[gcthomas]

Oh, wow.

:darwinsm:

You're really desperate, aren't you?

:mock: geekythomas.

And you are REALLY abandoning your position that Walt is an honest broker.

Walt predicted pools of water beneath mountains and you agreed.

Walt claims that prediction was experimentally verified. You agreed.

You presented research to prove your point, but when you find out process the exact opposite you can't face admitting you were wrong. That Walt is wrong.

Not only has the pool of water not been found, it is certain now that there are none.

Walt has erroneously claimed that his prediction had been proven true.

Is Walt incompetent or a fraud, selling his book to the gullible?

 

[Stripe]

And you are REALLY abandoning your position that Walt is an honest broker. Walt predicted pools of water beneath mountains and you agreed. Walt claims that prediction was experimentally verified. You agreed. You presented research to prove your point, but when you find out process the exact opposite you can't face admitting you were wrong. That Walt is wrong. Not only has the pool of water not been found, it is certain now that there are none. Walt has erroneously claimed that his prediction had been proven true. Is Walt incompetent or a fraud, selling his book to the gullible?

The prediction was that there would be salt water beneath major mountain ranges.

The research indicates there is water beneath a major mountain range.

In your desperation to deny any possibility that a creationist might be right in any minor way, you are willing to say anything.

You're a waste of time. :loser:

 

[gcthomas]

The prediction was that there would be salt water beneath major mountain ranges.

The research indicates there is water beneath a major mountain range.

Walt says:

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. [See Figures 66 and 67.] This partially explains the reduced mass beneath mountains that gravity measurements have shown for over a century.71 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 73. Such a drilling project could be extremely dangerous. If the prediction of water under buckled portions of mountains is correct, then this drilling project might have disastrous consequences. Upward-escaping, high-pressure water would quickly erode and greatly enlarge the drilled hole. As water escaped from beneath the mountain range, major earthquakes could occur.

There is no such pool of water under Tibet, according to the referenced paper that you didn't read.

The large voids do not exist. Failed prediction. You don't seem to even have read the prediction, of water filling large voids. Fail.

You are a loser, Stripe. You always lose, but you don't have the gumption to admit mistakes and move on - you just keep digging deeper and deeper holes (in which you have found insufficient water!)

In your desperation to deny any possibility that a creationist might be right in any minor way, you are willing to say anything.

You are not right in even a minor way - Walt messed up this prediction, which YOU raised as evidence supporting Hydroplate "theory". Unfortunately for you and Walt, the evidence undermines it, but you don't have the wit to realise it.

Tell you what, Stripe - one last chance. A challenge. See if you can find a quote from the research you both quote that supports your delusions.

 

[Stripe]

There is no such pool of water under Tibet, according to the referenced paper that you didn't read.

:darwinsm:

:mock: geekythomas

 

[gcthomas]

:darwinsm:

:mock: geekythomas

So you couldn't find anything in your paper to support what you claimed?

That figures: you always resort to emotis when you have nothing sensible to add. Which is most of the time.

:third:

 

[Stripe]

So you couldn't find anything in your paper to support what you claimed?

The prediction was for salt water beneath mountains. The paper said there was likely water beneath mountains.

:mock: desperate evolutionists.

 

[gcthomas]

The prediction was for salt water beneath mountains. The paper said there was likely water beneath mountains.

:mock: desperate evolutionists.

Nope - you are mistaken or lying. As per the quote from Walt's book, the prediction was for voids filled with water.

If you continue with your false claim in the face of the black and white evidence everyone will have to consider you a defensive liar.

:thumbs:

p.s. Why don't you ask Jefferson to lock the thread to save you from more embarrassment, if you can't find anything apart from untruths to support your argument?

 

[Stripe]

The prediction was for voids filled with water.

Seriously?

This is where you have to go?

:mock: Desperate evolutionists.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

STRIPE and gcthomas

You guys appear to be correct here. 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.

I've been trying to find sources on pools of water under mountains but have been unsuccessful (not ignoring you). I did read the article I linked and several months back read perhaps 5 articles about the "oceans of water" found 400 miles below the surface (one place says a much as 600 miles). I have to admit I was lazy, however, and didn't consider that Brown didn't simply predict that water would be found but "pools of water."

I do plan to do some more research on this and hopefully get back to TOL on this (I'm not saying I wasn't wrong as it seems I was). One caveat is that the deepest we've drilled (the Russians) is only about 7 miles. The basalt layer is 20 to 30 miles below the surface which, I would assume, is where Brown would say his hypothetical pools of water would be found.

Also a question: Volcanoes release a massive amount of water and it's now assumed that this water is collected from the water they've now discovered are trapped in rocks deep in the earth. It's been 10 or so years since I was in grade school (OK, OK--50 years ) but I seem to remember that scientists were saying there was very little water deep under the surface at that time (in the 60's). That belief, of course, was based on the old earth assumption that the earth was molten rock which, like volcanoes, would force the vast majority of the water to the surface. [Actually, the belief is that the earth's surface had hardened to a large degree and was then heated and turned molten for yet a second time when the planet that struck the earth and created the moon took place.] Again, though, I can find no sources to confirm my memory on this (not a lot of articles from the 60's about debunked theories). Would you guys know anything about this?

Finally, some scientists now speculate that since they have found so much water it's likely there are pools deep under the surface. On one link; http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/03/massive-subterannean-reservoir/359108/
a geochemist says, "this sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area."

 

[The Barbarian]

At last! A compliment from old Stripe!

Hate to tell you but Stipe thinks it's shameful to know what you're talking about. To him, "geek" is not a term of praise.

 

[gcthomas]

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

Also a question: Volcanoes release a massive amount of water and it's now assumed that this water is collected from the water they've now discovered are trapped in rocks deep in the earth. It's been 10 or so years since I was in grade school (OK, OK--50 years ) but I seem to remember that scientists were saying there was very little water deep under the surface at that time (in the 60's).

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.

That belief, of course, was based on the old earth assumption that the earth was molten rock which, like volcanoes, would force the vast majority of the water to the surface. [Actually, the belief is that the earth's surface had hardened to a large degree and was then heated and turned molten for yet a second time when the planet that struck the earth and created the moon took place.] Again, though, I can find no sources to confirm my memory on this (not a lot of articles from the 60's about debunked theories). Would you guys know anything about this?

The Earth appears to have been struck by a Mars sized proto-planet early in its history which would have melted whatever has solidified at that point (not much that early I expect) and blew out enough rock to condense into the Moon, rather closer than it is now.

Finally, some scientists now speculate that since they have found so much water it's likely there are pools deep under the surface. On one link; http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/03/massive-subterannean-reservoir/359108/
a geochemist says, "this sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area."

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.