Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum vast water reservoir hidden beneath the earth

Even if this theory happened to be correct; please tell me you are not suggesting that this was Noah’s flood.



This kills any objections relating to space on the ark! How much room could “algae and bacteria” need.



You are, of course, free to assume anything you wish, whether I said it or not; such is freedom of thought…….



…..and we all have a right to our personal beliefs.



Certainty is a luxury not enjoyed in science; it is a feature of the realms of dogma. However, it was your post so it behoves you to make the necessary link.

did I say I was?
the reason I posted the information was to show that there
was enough water to cover the earth in the past!
and unless the water disappeared there would have been enough
to cover the earth during Noahs worldwide flood.



are you saying that it was correct in the past?



so you were assuming that then.



I havent read that everyone on the earth has a right to their own personal beliefs.
but all normal healthy humans do have the ability to have personal beliefs.



then when you said



you actually meant to use something more like

maybe they cant be linked to a worldwide flood.
or
perhaps they cant be linked to a worldwide flood.


because using the word nor in that context equates to certainty and Certainty is a luxury not enjoyed in science.

I suppose your next comment was in reference to religious dogma



were you trying to show me that there is a realm of scientific dogma?

If you had, why would I have asked. Stay focused, Paul.



The flooded Earth hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis. It would be interesting if you could find a leading geologist who has taken this seriously since 2008. It ignores any evidence for dry land prior to the time in question.



That you can even ask that question demonstrates either a poor understanding of English, or a wish to prevaricate. As this is a science discussion forum, not an English class, I will let that pass.



A little clarity would be appreciated, if it is worth pursuing.



Neither have I, but I do not necessarily base my opinions on matters of this nature on the writings of others.



Please do me the courtesy of allowing me to be the judge of what I meant.

Implicit in such statements as mine is the understanding that it is based on our current scientific knowledge. I credit you with the intelligence and understanding to appreciate that.



Paul, that’s way below your usual standard, even at your most argumentative.

I have responded to the points in your last post because I believe that is a matter of courtesy, but I think I shall opt out from here on, unless we can raise our sights a bit, and return to something resembling science. If I were looking for an exchange of smart-arsed comments, I'm sure there are forums dedicated to that.

theres an old saying , if you cant take the heat stay out of
the kitchen.

and then theres , do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

in other words you should try to keep your smart-arsed comments to yourself and you being the first to use
smart-arsed comments shouldnt request others to refrain
from using the same tactics that you choose to use in a discussion.

Did I ask anyone to refrain? I think not. If you have to make up things to criticise, it's time we both pulled out.

Did I say you did?





if you want to "pull out" of the discussion then thats your
choice to make and its fine with me if thats what you choose, I would much rather we treat this in a more scientific manner than to trade insults back and fourth.

there would be nothing disgraceful about pulling out or
deciding not to escalate the situation think about what has already been accomplished in your favor and decide
if you really want to risk that.

No comment.



I will refrain from commenting on any implication that one might be better than the other as the situation moves towards a slanging match.

Paul, I think you will find there is a widely accepted explanation for an orbital effect on temperature.

Most people don't know that the effect does not change the amount of overall energy that the planet gets from the sun;
but rather, it only changes the distribution of that overall energy, which remains very constant over the centuries, on average.

If you search "insolation at 65n" ...or anything about the Milankovitch cycles and 65 N (degrees) latitude, then you'll find this type of info:


&


This scale is the very informative, since it reveals the relative stability of the past 10,000 years; that is, the almost-level slope for the red/pink line, near the upper right-hand corner of the chart. It is declining, but the average is very stable when compared with similar time spans from almost any other period in the graph (or on longer graphs). This graph does show the more "high-resolution" (jittery) data of the past 10,000 years (more proxies and records), and then the graph becomes smoother, as more millennia are added, because we have so many fewer proxies the farther back we measure; but the average slope should still be seen as smoothed (non-jittery) average.

So you should agree that the slope of the past 10,000 years has been fairly constant (on a 500 year running average), compared with most of the climate history; though it is bucking the Milankovitch forcing, nowadays.

Perhaps there is some other forcing --one that is actually changing the overall energy balance with the sun, globally, 24/7/365, and unceasingly for decades and centuries to come-- rather than just changing the distribution of (previously) constant energy at certain latitudes.
===

p.s.

Here is a better view from NCDC/NOAA, for which the same points about a 'relatively level and constant slope' of the past 10,000 years can be noted, which shows how counter-balancing effects produced the relatively 'level' slope of "stable" climate.
~

Samwik, thanks for bringing us back to science.

The last graph is particularly interesting in that is shows a closer link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature than between insolation and temperature. That's a timely piece of information, as tomorrow I hope to join a geological field trip to look at some deposits, ranging from about 54my to about 1my, that should show evidence of local temperature changes.

Unfortunately, there is a large unconformity, so nothing approaching a continuous record.

Apparently there is a bit of a paradigm shift on, in some aspects of geology. Climate regimes, such as cool/wet or cool/dry, and hot/wet or hot/dry, seem to affect the types of clays that form ...even more significantly than the parent material from which the clays are formed!

Fortunately, this means we can now tell more about the past climate (but less about the past geology, I suppose). Certainly though, you'll be looking at the most interesting time; the past 50myr brings major mammalian influences into the biogeochemical brew ...along with the grasses they ate (and spread equatorward as the planet cooled, the Atlantic opened, and the Seasons finally developed as the ice caps grew into stability).

I only recently learned that what we call "regular" good soil, is also referred to as "interglacial soil," so it has not been forming and building deposits for most of the planet's history. Happy Hunting!

~

I am glad to have found this thread...

A chap I know called Peter Woodhead was doing some research about the mechanism which has caused the earth to expand and contacted me. Over the last year, we have put together 2 videos and 2 articles.

Part 1

http://tinyurl.com/expearthpw
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/in...4&Itemid=59

Part 2

http://tinyurl.com/expearthpw2
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/in...9&Itemid=59

Sorry if this is a drive-by posting etc, but I don't like posting on forums that much now - as I rarely know who I am talking to (the culture of "not using your real name" was created quite a few years ago and is ideal for allowing serious and important discussion to be controlled and derailed). There is more about that on my website if anyone wants to explore other topics on there...

Thanks for reading!

I have seen stupid science but that possibly takes the record I have ever seen and should be listed in the fail at science files.

The pressure at the centre of the earth is 330 gigapascals based solely on simple gravity calculations. You did all sort of stupid and ridiculous calculations try calculating the pressure its not hard it so trivial we teach it to high school students.

Pressure = (Mass^2 * G) / (Volume * Radius)

The derivation of this is from Pascal's principle and is called Pascal's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_law) and you will note it valid for gases, liquids and we have transferred it to a solid (which shouldn't upset you because you say the centre is a gas).

Earth Mass is: 5.98E10^24 [kg]
Earth Radius is: 6.37E10^6 [m]
Newton's Constant G is: 6.67E10^-11 [m^3/kg*s^2]
Volume = (4 * pi * R^3) / 3 = 1.08E10^21 [m^3]

Crunch the numbers genius and you should get 347 giga Pascals of pressure at the center of the earth and it matters not what phase it is.

Here is the phase diagram for water


Notice what happens to water at a mere 22100 KPascals which is a mere 0.0221 giga Pascals ... IT CAN NOT EVER BE GAS THAT IS THE CRITICAL POINT FOR WATER.

Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_point_(thermodynamics)

So lets see if you are smart enough to work out the idea is so stupid it hurt's

We could say your theory ran out of gas

I guess Blaise Pascal's work could be the work of the devil designed to put you religious types off

Thanks for the thought - it's an interesting addition which we can add. Mind you, I think it always works better if you don't make rude remarks - just stick with the constructive criticism.

That's one of the issues with anonymity isn't it? If one doesn't use one's real name, then one is less responsible for what one says.

Of course, what you have written may be 100% correct - but as you've not drilled down to 500km+ below the earth's surface, you can't be sure.

On the surface (pun intended), what you have illustrated would be an obvious problem etc. So thanks for that!

I am sorry we face a regular lineup of dropkicks who don't even bother to do the most basic checks on current science understanding and come on here and promote some equally stupid idea such the one above.

Most science is supported by multiple lines of evidence and experiments that must all agree with each other or it will be investigated if at all possible. That is how the process works.


I take total responsibility for what I say, I can assure you I am nowhere near as nice in real life without forum rules. I think it gives away your background that you think people are intrinsically nice, which life will teach you is perhaps wrong. History is full of lots of nice people killing lots of other nice people, you may want to ponder that

You don't understand me and consider me not a nice person, I get and that is fine by me. What I don't get is why people like you don't actually ask questions before pushing these stupid ideas, I guess our politicians set a bad example.

Why I chose anonymity is for a personal reason but I would suggest you rethink putting your real name on this idea, you are making a big statement to the world


Ah yeah standard response the laws of physics and gravity just decide to up and change under the earth because we haven't been there, makes perfect sense.

Please note we have this thing call a diamond anvil cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell) and it can reach pressures of 600 gigapascals (more than our calculated pressure at centre of earth) so we don't have to speculate on what happens.

So your going to have to argue the pressure isn't that much which should generate a really good laugh.

We haven't even touched on the earth's magnetic field which is going to require metal or some exotic effect to produce or maybe we have the never seen magnetic water vapour as well in the core


The idea is stone dead, I think it needs some gas

The discovery of Ringwoodite has given rise to some geological "flapdoodle". There are some interesting comments on Ringwoodite here:

http://forums.about.com/discussions/Geology/_/_/ab-geology/2363.1

It would seem quite simple to establish the pressure in the earth's core since it must be greater, (though not immensely greater) than the gas and water being vented along the mid ocean ridges.

That isn't quite true. The gas and water venting from the mid-ocean ridges is coming from at most a few miles deep. The outer core lies 2,890 km (1,800 mi) beneath Earth's surface. At that depth the pressure is a lot above the pressure at the ridges. The deepest ridge is about 4 km (2 1/2 miles) below the surface of the ocean.

Bill Gill

The simplest way to calculate the pressure has been given by using Pascal's law because even normal solid's are going to deform and move at these pressures ... the logic is the movement only stops when you get crystaline structures form capable of withstanding the pressure.

The current understanding is the core is iron and so it is iron that is tested in a diamond anvil vice.

The science: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/15435...face-of-the-sun

In essence the idea is to extend a thought experiment of deep sea vessels that show the pressure increases the deeper you go because you are supporting all the mass above you. Remember atmospheric pressure is the mass of the thin air above you. The thought experiment simply goes extend the deepest ocean trench down to just above the centre of the earth and you can use normal pressure calculations to calculate the pressure there which the earth surface at that point must then withstand. So the only difference if a solid, liquid or gas is above you is if it can withstand the pressure. Hence in solids you can "mine a hole" so long as the material is capable of withstanding the pressure of the material above and in mining it is called the "intact rock strength". Many children have been killed digging tunnels in sand and having the roof collapse in on them under the mass of the material above the tunnel as well as a few mining accidents to same cause.

That is the basis of ignoring the fact we are dealing with solids because only crystaline solid structures would be able to withstand those sorts of pressures. If you don't have a structure capable of withstanding that pressure you can basically assume it is going to collapse under the pressure like any material does in a material science lab. For example granites fractures and collapse at a bit over 200 MegaPascals which is a lot less than the calculated centre of earth pressure. Ultimately you must come up with a structure capable of being able to survive the pressure calculated by pascals law.

So any suggested core structure can easily be tested in a materials lab and must be capable of withstanding the calculated 340 GigaPascals.

On gas giant planets like Jupiter the core is expected to be metallic hydrogen because that is consistent with the pressure at the centre of such a large planet would have. It is also consistent with the Magnetosphere of Jupiter the other fact the gas core whackies ignore.