The Deep

[Subduction Zone]

Justa, did you not notice that all of the referrals to "oceans" are in scare quotes. Here Claire can explain this for you:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvbG5uVbiJM

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa, did you not notice that all of the referrals to "oceans" are in scare quotes. Here Claire can explain this for you:

Except science doesn't agree with her.

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Ringwoodite is notable for being able to contain hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen atoms bound together) within its structure. Combined with evidence of its occurrence deep in the Earth's mantle, this suggests that there is from one to three world ocean's equivalent of water in the mantle transition zone from 410 to 660 km deep...."

We just found three ocean's worth just under the united states. Your theorists believed that might have been the total everywhere. So right off the get go we find your predictions do not match reality. As occurs with every single new data set.

"...the olivine polymorphs wadsleyite and ringwoodite are thought to dominate the transition zone of the mantle, a zone present from about 410 to 660 km depth."

So if you managed to get one thing right, we can expect much, much more yet of what did she call it, little pockets of water.

But then if you know so much about the core as you claim, why did you not know about all this water right below us until just recently??? Personally, I don't think they know half as much as they claim to know, evidenced by their lack of correct predictions on a constant basis.

Because geologists also let the cosmologists control their theory. It all leads back to ignoring 99% of the universe of which we are but a speck therein.

 

[RickG]

Except science doesn't agree with her.

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Ringwoodite is notable for being able to contain hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen atoms bound together) within its structure. Combined with evidence of its occurrence deep in the Earth's mantle, this suggests that there is from one to three world ocean's equivalent of water in the mantle transition zone from 410 to 660 km deep...."

No, the paper says nothing about an ocean in the mantle.
Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle

We just found three ocean's worth just under the united states. Your theorists believed that might have been the total everywhere. So right off the get go we find your predictions do not match reality. As occurs with every single new data set.

Citation? And if you don't have one from the scientific literature try this one.
Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle

"...the olivine polymorphs wadsleyite and ringwoodite are thought to dominate the transition zone of the mantle, a zone present from about 410 to 660 km depth."

Correct, contained in hydrous minerals, not an ocean.
Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle

So if you managed to get one thing right, we can expect much, much more yet.

Read the paper and point out where there are oceans in the mantle.
Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle

Because geologists also let the cosmologists control their theory. It all leads back to ignoring 99% of the universe of which we are but a speck therein.

Instead of trying to divert your own thread way off topic again, why not read the paper and show us where the oceans in the mantle are?
Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except science doesn't agree with her.

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Ringwoodite is notable for being able to contain hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen atoms bound together) within its structure. Combined with evidence of its occurrence deep in the Earth's mantle, this suggests that there is from one to three world ocean's equivalent of water in the mantle transition zone from 410 to 660 km deep...."

We just found three ocean's worth just under the united states. Your theorists believed that might have been the total everywhere. So right off the get go we find your predictions do not match reality. As occurs with every single new data set.

"...the olivine polymorphs wadsleyite and ringwoodite are thought to dominate the transition zone of the mantle, a zone present from about 410 to 660 km depth."

So if you managed to get one thing right, we can expect much, much more yet of what did she call it, little pockets of water.

But then if you know so much about the core as you claim, why did you not know about all this water right below us until just recently??? Personally, I don't think they know half as much as they claim to know, evidenced by their lack of correct predictions on a constant basis.

Because geologists also let the cosmologists control their theory. It all leads back to ignoring 99% of the universe of which we are but a speck therein.

No, the Wiki article agrees with Claire. Watch the video again. There are no pools of water. There is no free water. It is all solid. It is tied up chemically.

You are just filled with fail today.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, the Wiki article agrees with Claire. Watch the video again. There are no pools of water. There is no free water. It is all solid. It is tied up chemically.

You are just filled with fail today.

No, you just like to believe that in your own mind. It doesn't matter if it's free or not, it's water, that equals in amount in one spot what your theory predicted for the entire earth.

If you can't get that correct, we certainly have no reason to assume the theories that led you to that incorrect assumption are any more correct either.

You want us all to ignore that the theories that led to every incorrect prediction made, (which has been every single one of them), somehow means those core theories are still correct.

It's not the data that is in question, there is 3 times the amount there in one spot that was predicted for the entire earth. That's the data. The interpretation (the theory) that is incorrect is how it got there and how it still exists in temperatures (in your model) and pressures that would cause it to be in an explosive state at the slightest release in pressure.

It sure wasn't comets which are nothing but asteroids in elliptical orbits, proven by every single probe sent to investigate them. We already know mainstream comet theory has been dashed.

Your theories now lack any explanation at all, while EU theory explains it all seamlessly. You are just afraid to give up your Fairie Dust. I understand, really I do.

But it's time to let go of theories over 400 years old who's predictions never meet what is observed. It's time to give up your faith in things never observed.

Not that I have anything against faith, that's religion, not science, but please do try to keep them separated in your own mind and stop mixing them together. At least until your religious beliefs start matching reality a tiny bit first.

So, if you are correct and ringwood is dominate in the transition zone of the mantle, and 3 times the amount was found under the USA, then we can assume more is to be found under Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, The polar regions. That's at a minimum 14 times the amount your theory predicted.

or this is all of it in which case your theory of the earth's composition is incorrect and it isn't dominant material.

And you base your theory on such a wealth of information.

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"An ultra-deep diamond found in Juína, Brazil, contained inclusions of ringwoodite—the only known sample of natural terrestrial origin"

But hey, you couldn't possibly be wrong about anything, could you, even when your theorists predicted a minimum of 12 times less than the amount we will most likely find, and if not then it is the rest of your theory that is incorrect. Take your pick.

What magical process are you going to use as to how that water got there that slowly filled out to the rest on the planet?

Water below Earth’s surface: Ringwoodite rock may hide reservoir three times bigger than the oceans.

"Researchers noted that if all that water was on the earth's surface, only the tops of mountains would peak out." And we still haven't found it all. So, how did it get there now that comets are useless to describe the amount or even the cause????

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mantle is not "one spot" The water is incredibly sparse throughout the mantle.

A very small percentage in a huge volume can still be equal to three oceans of water.

The idea is so face palmingly simple it is amazing that even you cannot understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here, this might help. The percentage of the mantle that is water is less than 0.1% assuming the "3 oceans" claim.

So how wet is the mantle? Not very, it is a reservoir, it is not a source of water. It very slowly enters and very slowly exits. No flooding is possible:

Re: What is the mass and volume percentages of certian layers of the earth?

 

[Mainframes]

Comets are not just asteroids in an elliptical orbit. Why do you keep coming up with this?

 

[MikeCarra]

I agree, the inner core is solid, and perhaps the outer nothing but porous material impregnated by liquid, as we are now finding to be quite common it seems.

Why wouldn't S-waves pass through it then?

Oh, wait, seismic topics aren't electric universe so we don't have to worry about technical details do we?

"Some" free water in the mantle where we find Telluric currents and lava pools, A LOT as you agree below that, tied up in ringwoodite (porous material

I believe that the Ringwoodite is not "porous", but rather originally is a HYDROUS MINERAL PHASE. That means the water is tied up in the crystal structure. Chemically. Perhaps as -OH groups.

The article initially indicated that this ringwoodite could be "dehydrating" as I understood it. leading to free water.

I can see now why you want to pull EVERYTHING over into electric universe....it's your wheelhouse and you are out of your depth in most other areas.

, which supplied that mantle. And below that we believe the outer core is liquid (molten material) and then solid core.

The density of the outer core is far too high to be "water". So there's that theory down the tubes.

Yah, you are right, there is just a little bit there, what was I thinking.

Are you aware of the SIZE OF THE MANTLE OF THE EARTH????

The mantle is about 84% of the earth's volume. The oceans are tiny little scum of material on the surface. The deepest part of the ocean is 11,000 meters (11km).

The mantle is 2,900km.

Hmmm, 11km:29000km

Even in the "electric universe" that's a very big difference

You should, 99% of the universe is.

The mantle is not. Which is what we are talking about.

Yes, little bits with three times the volume of all the ocean's on the earth combined. An earth that is 98% water on it's surface.

Are you at all familiar with the earth?

The surface of the earth is VERY VERY VERY THIN compared to the size of the mantle.

And the surface ones are warm, and the deeper ones under more pressure and closer to the core are cold. This helps your heated core magical dynamo theory how?

It has nothing to do with that at all.

Are you familiar with the ocean at all? I know it's not plasma, but the ocean is cold at the bottom because DENSE COLD WATER SINKS.

The heat emanating out of the earth itself is too small to change this temperature much. In fact there's a massive "conveyor belt" of water currents that move this water around.

If you didn't ignore 99% of the universe (of which the earth is but a speck therein) you could explain all those anomalies easily.

You aren't doing it on here. If you think you are you are clearly so uneducated in geology you don't know how far off you are on stuff.

Look up there earlier: you hypothesized the outer core may be a porous material with water in it! LOL! No offense but a first year undergrad geology major knows that doesn't even make sense.

Let alone what one learns when they get a bit of mineralogy and chemistry under their belts and the couple that with seismic refraction information and your hypothesis is...simply but: bizarre.

Stick with stuff that people don't know much about for your electric universe stuff. It sounds silly when you try to displace known science that you don't understand, like geology.

Or better yet: take a geology class.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why wouldn't S-waves pass through it then?

Oh, wait, seismic topics aren't electric universe so we don't have to worry about technical details do we?

Oh qyite the contrare. Since recent observations have shown that the magnetosphere of the earth increases in charge immediately before earthquakes. So why wouldn't we consider electrical solutions and causes????

I mean, your own scientists think it quite possible, they just haven't come right out and said it yet. Might get their funding cut.

HowStuffWorks "Predicting Earthquakes"

"Another area of study is the relationship between magnetic and electrical charges in rock material and earthquakes. Some scientists have hypothesized that these electromagnetic fields change in a certain way just before an earthquake."

And we can link that once again to space.

Ionospheric charge could forewarn of earthquakes | EARTH Magazine

"Satellite records of atmospheric electron activity high above the island reveal an unusual pattern of behavior in the ionosphere in the months leading up to the quake — information that could be used in the future to forewarn of major earthquakes."

Japan Earthquake Was 'In the Air' Days Before, Scientist Claims | Earthquake Prediction | Japan Quake & Tsunami

Japan earthquake: Atmosphere above epicentre heated up 'rapidly' days before disaster | Mail Online

One of these days you'll quit living 400 years into the past.

I believe that the Ringwoodite is not "porous", but rather originally is a HYDROUS MINERAL PHASE. That means the water is tied up in the crystal structure. Chemically. Perhaps as -OH groups.

The article initially indicated that this ringwoodite could be "dehydrating" as I understood it. leading to free water.

That doesn't say how the water got there. Dis the rock just make water?

I'll give you a hint about the only known way we know how to make water.


Want to hazard a guess on your own? And it has to match what is observed in space with comets too.

I can see now why you want to pull EVERYTHING over into electric universe....it's your wheelhouse and you are out of your depth in most other areas.

Says the man relying on theories already falsified by the data.

The density of the outer core is far too high to be "water". So there's that theory down the tubes.

You understand nothing about densities of soluble materials under high pressure.


First you wanted to claim it was rock, not water, now you want to complain because it acts like a molten or highly compressed soluble material.



Blah, blah, blah, you say nothing.

You haven't said how that water got there. Even geologists are abandoning the cosmologists on this one and jumping off of the falsified comet theory of water on earth and grabbing at this chance to disassociate themselves from that failed theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

justa, the article says the mysterious claim of "some scientists" The idea of changes in magnetic field is not widely accepted as far as I know. You need a site better than "How Stuff Works"

How about some links to well respected peer reviewed articles instead of nonsense from the popular press.

Do you realize yet how badly you erred with your "3 oceans in the mantle" claim?

And as far as the origin of water on the Earth goes it looks like the water was in the asteroids and other rocky bodies that made up the Earth. Once again, they can be part of the chemical structure of various minerals. They are not abandoning comets because it is a bad idea, but because the evidence supports asteroids. They are not "abandoning the cosmologists".

Why can't you even get the simplest of facts right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

justa, the article says the mysterious claim of "some scientists" The idea of changes in magnetic field is not widely accepted as far as I know. You need a site better than "How Stuff Works"

I know "your" experts are confused about magnetic fields, that's a given from the data.

Heliosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Initial interpretations suggest that "the interstellar environment has far more influence on structuring the heliosphere than anyone previously believed""

The sad thing is that you are still one of those that do believe it has no influence on it. As I said, it is "your" model that does not work, not mine.

"but everyone agrees that it means the textbook picture of the heliosphere—in which the Solar System's enveloping pocket filled with the solar wind's charged particles is plowing through the onrushing "galactic wind" of the interstellar medium in the shape of a comet—is wrong."


Can we just admit to electric currents and get this farce over with?

"the INCA (ENA) maps suggest that the interaction is controlled more by particle pressure and magnetic field energy density."

Particle pressure in a vacuum.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#cite_note-jhopkins-12 It's called moving charges and electric currents.

How about some links to well respected peer reviewed articles instead of nonsense from the popular press.

You mean like that peer reviewed video you submitted?

Do you realize yet how badly you erred with your "3 oceans in the mantle" claim?

I never said 3 ocean's, not once. I said 3 ocean's worth of water. Do you understand the difference?

And as far as the origin of water on the Earth goes it looks like the water was in the asteroids and other rocky bodies that made up the Earth. Once again, they can be part of the chemical structure of various minerals. They are not abandoning comets because it is a bad idea, but because the evidence supports asteroids. They are not "abandoning the cosmologists".

Why can't you even get the simplest of facts right?

Asteroids and comets are hot and dry, every single one of them.

At most comets with a very slight coating of frost.

Because that water is formed from the stripping of negative ions from the comet that combine with the solar protons to form H2O in the coma. The release of hydroxyls, which has been observed, Combine in the coma to produce the H2O and causes the x-ray and ultraviolet activity detected. The same process that occurred on earth until it had an atmosphere built up through that process to protect it.

Even now it still occurs.

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/ast09dec97_3/


But you still continue to ignore it in your Fairie Dust world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you still have nothing justa.

Don't you remember, I asked for one peer reviewed article that supported your claim.

I did not ask about your failed non-theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you still have nothing justa.

Don't you remember, I asked for one peer reviewed article that supported your claim.

I did not ask about your failed non-theory.

Yet you have none either, since for the last 80 years you relied on comets as your water source. Since that theory has been falsified you are left with claiming all the water came from within, but we'll overlook the fact that that water still has no source.

All we need to know is that you keep ignoring what is occurring.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

"Earth-Shaking" Surprise Found in Upper Atmosphere | NBC Southern California

But anyone that knows you, knows your propensity for ignoring whatever you don't want to consider.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you have none either, since for the last 80 years you relied on comets as your water source. Since that theory has been falsified you are left with claiming all the water came from within, but we'll overlook the fact that that water still has no source.

All we need to know is that you keep ignoring what is occurring.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

"Earth-Shaking" Surprise Found in Upper Atmosphere | NBC Southern California

But anyone that knows you, knows your propensity for ignoring whatever you don't want to consider.

You need to work on your English. The idea of comets supplying the water for the Earth was always hypothetical. We know there were two possible sources, either comets or the rock themselves. We have simply found that rocks are the most likely source. Comets may still have played a role, but a minor one. And why the two articles? They do not support the lunacy of an EU, nor are they the answer to my request for just one peer reviewed article on how earthquakes affect the magnetic field.

I see that you are still filled with fail. justa, if you want to argue science why don't you take some science courses? And math, you can't do science without math. Remember your astounding failure in my gravity challenge. That was the problem that you claimed could not be answered with the information given if you do not remember.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The idea of comets supplying the water for the Earth was always hypothetical. We know there were two possible sources, either comets or the rock themselves. We have simply found that rocks are the most likely source. Comets may still have played a role, but a minor one. And why the two articles? They do not support the lunacy of an EU, nor are they the answer to my request for just one peer reviewed article on how earthquakes affect the magnetic field.

I see that you are still filled with fail. justa, if you want to argue science why don't you take some science courses? And math, you can't do science without math. Remember your astounding failure in my gravity challenge. That was the problem that you claimed could not be answered with the information given if you do not remember.

I agree SZ, that's what I said earlier, you just didn't listen then. Rocks are the most likely source, as the protons strip the electrons off and then Combine with them to from those H20 molecules.

Earth weaves its own invisible cloak - Polar fountains fill magnetosphere with ions - NASA Science

It even occurs on the moon.

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

"Recently, however, an international fleet of lunar-orbiting spacecraft has detected signs of the moon's presence "upstream" in the solar wind. "We've seen electron beams and ion fountains over the moon's day side," says Dr. Jasper Halekas, also of the University of California, Berkeley."

So lets find out what an electron beam or ion fountain is shall we?

Cathode ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Cathode rays (also called an electron beam or e-beam) are streams of electrons observed in vacuum tubes. If an evacuated glass tube is equipped with two electrodes and a voltage is applied, the glass opposite of the negative electrode is observed to glow, due to electrons emitted from and travelling perpendicular to the cathode (the electrode connected to the negative terminal of the voltage supply). They were first observed in 1869 by German physicist Johann Hittorf, and were named in 1876 by Eugen Goldstein Kathodenstrahlen, or cathode rays."

Electron beam technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither I, nor the EU ignores the data, you do. Without any doubt whatsoever it is those rocks. And that is also why it happens in the coma of comets (which are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits in the electric field of the sun), and then condenses onto the surface forming shallow spots of frost. Also why they are burnt black (cause sooty material sure ain't caused from ice melting). Also the same reason for those patches of frost on the moon in craters always in shadow.

Now you just need to stop lying to yourself and admit what is causing all the things we observe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree SZ, that's what I said earlier, you just didn't listen then. Rocks are the most likely source,

Right, you finally got some..... wait a second, there is more?

as the protons strip the electrons off and then Combine with them to from those H20 molecules.

,snip of utter lunacy..>

Oh my. You can't but help to bring up your lunacy at every chance.

Sadly the only one who believes in "fairy dust" is justa.

No, the amount of water produced by your idea has to be less than the amount that we lose each day to the solar wind. Or very very close to it.

No need to bring any craziness into the idea. The water is tied up in the rocks chemically. If the water was already in the Earth then what little water is found on the Moon should have the protium/deuterium ratio and they do:

Earth and Moon Got Water from Common Source - Scientific American

If your "electric wind" was the source of water the amount of water the amount of deuterium would be zip, nada, zilch.

 

[MikeCarra]

One of these days you'll quit living 400 years into the past.

Or maybe you could get, say, 11 years of geology coursework and research as I have done. But please, don't let this little issue of no knowledge of geology actually stand in your way!

That doesn't say how the water got there. Dis the rock just make water?

I want to facepalm right now. Do you honestly have no earthly idea of what minerals are? Or that water can indeed be transported down into the mantle during subduction? Or that water exists in minerals on earth?

This question is, frankly, absurd.

Says the man relying on theories already falsified by the data.

No, says the man with a BS, MS and PhD in geology and 20 years of experience in chemistry.

You understand nothing about densities of soluble materials under high pressure.

Care to educate me? And what "soluble materials" are you now talking about? Because you hadn't said a thing about soluble materials (things that can be dissolved in a medium). So I suspect you are trying to fling around terms right now that you don't really understand. Like your earlier suggestion of a porous outer core with water in it.

First you wanted to claim it was rock

INCORRECT. You just don't know enough geology to understand what I was saying:

1. The inner core is SOLID (hence the refraction of p-waves)
2. The outer core is LIQUID (hence the failure of s-waves to propogate through it)

I never said the entire core was "rock".

, not water, now you want to complain because it acts like a molten or highly compressed soluble material.

You keep using "soluble" as if you understand what that means. The outer core is a MOLTEN material. I don't know what you mean by "soluble" (hint: soluble is NOT the same thing as molten. Indeed one metal can be dissolved in another molten metal but since you are using technical language so loosely and poorly I honestly don't know what you are trying to say).

You haven't said how that water got there. Even geologists are abandoning the cosmologists on this one and jumping off of the falsified comet theory of water on earth and grabbing at this chance to disassociate themselves from that failed theory.

-sigh- When I was in grad school we learned about the difference between JUVENILE water (water from primary sources like IGNEOUS ROCKS, or MAGMA) and METEORIC water (water from precipitation). As for the origin of water on earth at the very beginning I recall hearing this hypothesis of comets long ago. It's not like you are leading the vanguard on any of this stuff.

You thought people just recently understood the outer core to be liquid when you said "according to the latest studies" earlier! LOL! Unless you mean studies going back DECADES...

Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

You should stick with your pet hypothesis of the electric universe and try not to mess around in fields you demonstrably have no experience in.

(And if you go so far as to make the kind of claims here about geology, which I happen to know quite a bit about-- I wonder about the claims you make about cosmology, a field I am far less familiar with. But not so unfamiliar as to understand that electric universe is so fringe that almost no mainstream cosmologist believes it is likely. But, hey, not my area. So that's why you don't see me denigrating the hypothesis since I don't know much about it. But I see you talking smack about geology and clearly you have little to no idea about it.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or maybe you could get, say, 11 years of geology coursework and research as I have done. But please, don't let this little issue of no knowledge of geology actually stand in your way!

Why, when you refuse to put the View Master down and instead ignore all the data we have gathered since the space age?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eojmYTbumZ8

You still ignore those electric currents between the earth and sun. Those same currents that falsified every single textbook you use.

Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere | UCLA

""We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said...

..."Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said."

And why were they surprised? because they ignored those "magnetic ropes" just like you do.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

They ignored those energetic connections like you ignore that 100,000 ampere current entering and exiting the poles.

Until you accept the data as it is and quit ignoring it, your theories will always be wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7w1rGeqXBg

» EU-Geology video

You continue to ignore that months before an earthquake ever happens the magnetosphere begins to build up charge in that area.

You continue to ignore sprites and elves, which declare that an electrical connection must exist between the clouds and space itself.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2002/01/sprites__elves.jpg

This is the 21st century, quit living in the stone ages.

 

[MikeCarra]

Why, when you refuse to put the View Master down and instead ignore all the data we have gathered since the space age?

In your world is it not necessary to know something about a topic before you make accusations of limited knowledge by otherss?

You still ignore those electric currents between the earth and sun. Those same currents that falsified every single textbook you use.

And, again, what does this have to do with a polymorph of the mineral olivine?

(apart from just any reason to espouse your pet topic?)

Until you accept the data as it is and quit ignoring it, your theories will always be wrong.

Well, "my theories" are usually more around how coating chemistry works. Not sure how magical electric currents through the universe will alter that.

This is the 21st century, quit living in the stone ages.

This is seriously off topic. I suggest you try to stick with the topic of the OP. You may be able to contact the guy who posted it.