The Deep

[MikeCarra]

And talking about dust, gas and solids in a universe 99% plasma is idiotic, but that's all you can seem to do. Tell me Mr. Chemist, what do we use to describe plasma in the laboratory??????

I don't have to use plasma to describe ringwoodite.

I can use plasma in an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) spectrometer to analyze chemicals (and I have done so quite a lot...but that must have been when I was 8 using my chemistry set at home!)

But mineralogy existed as a science LONG before ICP's were around.

About the only chemistry you have done is the chemistry you did when 8 and got a child's chemistry set.

LOL. If you say so.

Please, provide your own link to what you consider acceptable chemistry, and that's where we will start.

First I'd like you to answer THIS POSTER'S QUESTION (HERE) (I did)

then we can talk about the following:

Olivine Mineral Data (HERE): the basic class of minerals that includes Ringwoodite

Ringwoodite Mineral Data (HERE): the mineral YOU introduced in the OP

Water in nominally anhydrous minerals (HERE): provides some background on the nature of "water" in mineral structures

Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite included within diamond (Nature, 2014) (Abstract)

Unless you are scared of course.

Unlike you who won't answer THIS QUESTION >>>>HERE<<<<, I'm not "scared" (I answered it in a PM to Subduction Zone).

I'm certain you won't be able to speak to ANY of the mineralogical topics and will revert to running away to Plasma cosmology. And I bet you won't answer the question now either, will you?

You complain about Wiki, then never provide any links you are willing to accept. Not scared of being pinned down are you?????

So far you have barely discussed any topic related to the OP! You almost immediately started decreeing everything "fairydust" because you wanted to talk about plasma COSMOLOGY.

 

[lesliedellow]

About the only chemistry you have done is the chemistry you did when 8 and got a child's chemistry set.

LOL. If you say so.

The only physics he has done is when h threw his rattle out of the pram, n it fell to the ground.

Of course, he made sure it was carrying an electro static charge first. Otherwise, as we all know, it wouldn't have fallen to the ground.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only physics he has done is when h threw his rattle out of the pram, n it fell to the ground.

Of course, he made sure it was carrying an electro static charge first. Otherwise, as we all know, it wouldn't have fallen to the ground.

Yet I am the one posting actual physics links, while you just make the only defense you have, ad hominem attacks.

Except particles that are charged relative to the "ground", don't fall to the ground, do they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMfYHag7Liw

And neither does the solar wind, charged particles, despite all that gravitational influence.

Funny how your every claim is shown to be wrong every time by real science and all you are left with is that ad hominem attack.

 

[MikeCarra]

Yet I am the one posting actual physics links, while you just make the only defense you have, ad hominem attacks.

Justa, I noted that I answered YOUR requests on mineralogy topics for discussion that relate directly to the OP, but you only took the time to answer Leslie's post...which, ironically enough, was more about plasma cosmology!

And here you SAID you would talk mineralogy if I provided the chemistry topics.

Tsk tsk.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't have to use plasma to describe ringwoodite.

Answered it here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827703-13/#post65879079

Except your claimed 5K core isn't driving any of the water off is it, nor is it even heating the water causing it to expand upwards, like we know for a fact happens. We have actual geysers all over the earth where we know pockets of heated water are located and what does happen to heated water. Yet that 3 oceans worth of water isn't acting like it's heated at all, isn't behaving according to the physics you claim is in effect.

I'd say your idea of chemistry isn't working very well at all when it comes to the actual chemistry and observations, is it?

I answered right below your post, so apparently you ignored it like you ignore everything else that doesn't fit into your tiny little world view.

99% of the universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

Except particles that are charged relative to the "ground", don't fall to the ground, do they?

Oh flaming heck, he has posted that Millikan Oil Droplet Experiment again.

Dear idiot, that gravity is electromagnetism in disguise is your unbelievably stupid idea, not mine. Besides which, charged particles quite happily fall to the ground, unless they are being subjected to an electric field of the appropriate strength and polarity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh flaming heck, he has posted that Millikan Oil Droplet Experiment again.

Dear idiot, that gravity is electromagnetism in disguise is your unbelievably stupid idea, not mine. Besides which, charged particles quite happily fall to the ground, unless they are being subjected to an electric field of the appropriate strength and polarity.

And hence all objects regardless of mass "fall" at the same speed in a vacuum. Even though according to you each mass must be bending spacetime more or less than another.

Those atoms of equal numbers of protons and electrons, whose electric and magnetic fields are balanced. Each proton is affecting equally each nearby atom as each electron is as well. They are both attracting and repelling, equally.



All that is left which you fail to acknowledge is the voltage differential between all objects of mass. Everything is charged relative to everything else. It is that overall voltage differential and nothing more that causes the electromagnetic effect we call gravity.

Which is why when an oil droplets energy is increased by x-rays, it begins to repel more because it's electric field is now stronger. It is no longer in balance with the magnetic fields or electric fields around it.

There is nothing mysterious or magical going on. No bending of nothing. Just a voltage field that extends indefinitely throughout space. Call that the ZPF or Higg's field, or whatever energy field by any name you want. In the end it will be an energy field, not bent nothing.

 

[MikeCarra]

Answered it here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827703-13/#post65879079

No you didn't. This is absurd.

We have actual geysers all over the earth where we know pockets of heated water are located and what does happen to heated water.

Geysers are actually a pretty complex set of superheating cycles of water well within the upper crust. They rely not only on heat but cycles of pressure (remember, a geyser is open to the atmosphere at the top.)

They usually have a tortuous path where the heater water can move into a space, pressurize and then release that pressure.

Not quite the same thing as water exsolving from a mineral phase.

Yet that 3 oceans worth of water isn't acting like it's heated at all

How do you get that? It is exsolving from the structure of the mineral itself.

We've known for a LONG time that water exists in the mantle. Usually entrapped in mineral phases (remember the question you didn't answer, well there are other minerals that carry water similarly), also some water is drug down in convergent margins if I recall correctly.

What on earth are you talking about here?

I'd say your idea of chemistry isn't working very well at all when it comes to the actual chemistry and observations, is it?

Actually it is....it's just more detailed than YOU understand. Water in the mantle is not the same as water in a plastic bottle. What on earth do you expect?

I answered right below your post, so apparently you ignored it like you ignore everything else that doesn't fit into your tiny little world view.

You didn't tell the poster which mineral had water in its structure. If you note I PM's the other poster with my answer on his request and I not only told him which pictured mineral had water in it, but exactly what that mineral was.

How did I do this from a picture? PhD in geology and years as a mineralogy TA.

Funny how education works isn't it?

If I could answer like that, why can't you?

Answer the question: which picture mineral has water in its structure and if you think you are able: what are the two minerals being shown?

(Don't worry, we all know you can't and you won't. But it's fun to see you dodge! And if you were to accidentally answer it now, it would look like it took you two solid weeks of googling until you found the exact picture!

Back in mineralogy lab there was a joke called the "flying mineral quiz"....a good mineralogist should be able to get close to identifying a mineral in the time it took to toss it at them. )

 

[lesliedellow]

And hence all objects regardless of mass "fall" at the same speed in a vacuum. Even though according to you each mass must be bending spacetime more or less than another.

I suppose that is Idiot's version of same acceleration in a vacuum. And yes they do, don't they? Which means that the gravitational force acting upon them must be proportional to their inertial mass, and therefore totally unrelated to any charge they may or may not be carrying.

All that is left which you fail to acknowledge is the voltage differential between all objects of mass. Everything is charged relative to everything else. It is that overall voltage differential and nothing more that causes the electromagnetic effect we call gravity.

Pure idiocy. The vast majority of objects around us either carry no net charge, or very little net charge.

Which is why when an oil droplets energy is increased by x-rays, it begins to repel more because it's electric field is now stronger. It is no longer in balance with the magnetic fields or electric fields around it.

It's energy isn't increased; it acquires an electric charge. That charge and energy are two different physical concepts still hasn't managed to penetrate that lump of solid bone you call a head, has it?

here is nothing mysterious or magical going on. No bending of nothing. Just a voltage field that extends indefinitely throughout space. Call that the ZPF or Higg's field, or whatever energy field by any name you want. In the end it will be an energy field, not bent nothing.

Ah yes, Sunday must be one of the days on which Einstein is held to have been an idiot. Perhaps he will be momentarily back in favour tomorrow.

Voltage and the Higgs Field are completely unrelated thicko.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yes they do, don't they? Which means that the gravitational force acting upon them must be proportional to their inertial mass, and therefore totally unrelated to any charge they may or may not be carrying.

Which means that independent of the charge they may be carrying according to your view, they must fall or accelerate faster or slower depending on their mass or the amount they each curve spacetime. An observation never once observed. Your theory directly refuted by direct observation since they do NOT each fall or accelerate according to their inertial mass, else that hammer would fall faster than the feather in a vacuum.

Since gravity is attractive, that inertial mass of larger proportion would exert it's own greater attractive force. And when one neglects it's charge (stupidity in itself since ALL mater is composed of electric charges) one must resort to bent nothing to explain what is observed. Instead of the reality of including those billions of charges that make up even the smallest mass.

The vast majority of objects around us either carry no net charge, or very little net charge.

Well make up your minds.

Atmospheric electricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's energy isn't increased; it acquires an electric charge. That charge and energy are two different physical concepts still hasn't managed to penetrate that lump of solid bone you call a head, has it?

Doesn't "acquire" anything, it already "has" an electric charge. You understand nothing of atomic science to declare such a ridiculous statement.

Partial charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charged particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, a charged particle is a particle with an electric charge. It may be an ion, such as a molecule or atom with a surplus or deficit of electrons relative to protons. It can be the electrons and protons themselves, as well as other elementary particles, like positrons. It may also be an atomic nucleus devoid of electrons, such as an alpha particle, a helium nucleus. Neutrons have no charge, so they are not charged particles unless they are part of a positively charged nucleus. Plasmas are a collection of charged particles, atomic nuclei and separated electrons, but can also be a gas containing a significant proportion of charged particles. Plasma is called the fourth state of matter because its properties are quite different from solids, liquids and gases."

There is no such thing as a particle without electric charge.

Voltage and the Higgs Field are completely unrelated thicko.

So "you" claim. Yet physicists are looking in the realms of high energy physics, not neutral particles.

Because you understand nothing of electrical theory.

Electric voltage

Just what were you taught in school, anything????

I can understand why we are so concerned with the sad state of affairs of our current education system, of which you are a product thereof.

You can't support your neutral universe of so much energy it permeates all of space - causing according to you an accelerating expansion in a neutral universe.

Voltage

"The electrical force law and the gravitational are both inverse square laws. Because the fundamental force law is the same, many of the concepts developed for gravitational forces can be taken over to electrical concepts because the underlying mathematics is the same. Those electrical concepts will be almost exactly the same except that charge will play the role in electrical forces that mass plays in gravitational forces. "

Of course they are the same. Einstein used the electromagnetic force laws of Maxwell, Gauss and Lorentz to define the gravitational field. An electromagnetic phenomenon of charged particles. His problem came when he was forced to use a pseudo-tensor to make his calculations work.

And ALL matter is composed of electric charges.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/scatele.html#c1

"From early experiments in which electrons were scattered off nuclei, it could be implied that the scattering was from some charged particle within the nucleus which remained intact while the nucleus itself broke into pieces. This could in that case be verified directly by knocking out a proton and measuring its properties. The same kind of evidence in the high energy scattering of electrons off protons can be similarly interpreted: there is a smaller charged particle inside which remains intact even as the proton breaks apart."


There isn't anything in the entire universe not composed of charged particles and the voltage difference that exists between them.

 

[Elendur]

Partial charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charged particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, a charged particle is a particle with an electric charge. It may be an ion, such as a molecule or atom with a surplus or deficit of electrons relative to protons. It can be the electrons and protons themselves, as well as other elementary particles, like positrons. It may also be an atomic nucleus devoid of electrons, such as an alpha particle, a helium nucleus. Neutrons have no charge, so they are not charged particles unless they are part of a positively charged nucleus. Plasmas are a collection of charged particles, atomic nuclei and separated electrons, but can also be a gas containing a significant proportion of charged particles. Plasma is called the fourth state of matter because its properties are quite different from solids, liquids and gases."

There is no such thing as a particle without electric charge.

Contradiction?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Contradiction?

Not at all.

Neutron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment....

...Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero. Since the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment is an indication of substructure. For a time, the neutron was thought to be made of a proton, with a charge of +1 e and an electron, with a charge of &#8722;1 e, whose charge would cancel out. However, since the advent of the quark model, it is now known that the neutron is made of one up quark (charge of +2/3 e) and two down quarks (charge of &#8722;1/3 e)."

It is simply balanced electromagnetically, i.e. charges react equally to all nearby charges. The Standard Model predicts both electric and magnetic components. A balanced particle. Emitting too low for our current technology to measure.

"...The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments."


That you misunderstand and take neutral to mean nothing, instead of balanced since it "IS" predicted to be emitting electromagnetically, is a conceptual problem on your behalf.

A model that every prediction so far that it has made has been proved correct. Unlike others, who's test for it once again validated the Standard Model and falsified Fairie Dust theories.

Physicists Debate Future of Supersymmetry | Simons Foundation

The new ideas are right before your eyes in standard physics and plasma physics. Stay away from that Fairie Dust. You just really need to stop treating that plasma like a neutral gas. It's imperative that you do so, as direct emperical evidence allows no other alternative.

A neutral particle that decays in less than 15 minutes when not part of a nucleus? Do we need to discuss particle or radioactive decay??????

 

[lesliedellow]

Which means that independent of the charge they may be carrying according to your view, they must fall or accelerate faster or slower depending on their mass or the amount they each curve spacetime.

Let's give you a lesson in school boy level physics shall we? The force on a body is proportional to its gravitational mass, which is in turn proportional to its inertial mass, and the constant of proportionality is one. Therefore all bodies fall at the same rate in a gravitational field, provided that their distance from the gravitating mass is small relative to its size.

Not that any of that is going to penetrate your bone head, of course.

Since gravity is attractive, that inertial mass of larger proportion would exert it's own greater attractive force. And when one neglects it's charge (stupidity in itself since ALL mater is composed of electric charges) one must resort to bent nothing to explain what is observed. Instead of the reality of including those billions of charges that make up even the smallest mass.

All garbage.

Doesn't "acquire" anything, it already "has" an electric charge. You understand nothing of atomic science to declare such a ridiculous statement.

You really do take the biscuit. They carried no net charge until they were subjected to a dose of ionizing radiation, at which point they acquired a charge.

Because you understand nothing of electrical theory.

I understand a bloody sight more than you, and that's for sure. But, since you are such an expert, let's have a little test. If a capacitor of 1,000&#956;F is wrired in series with a resistor of 100&#937;, with a current of 50Hz going through it, what is the impedance of the circuit?

Just what were you taught in school, anything????

A bloody sight more than you. I am certain you must have been home schooled by fundy parents who were as ill educated as you are.

Of course they are the same. Einstein used the electromagnetic force laws of Maxwell, Gauss and Lorentz to define the gravitational field.

Absolutely bloody rubbish. Einstein spent most of the second half of his life trying to find a unified field theory, and failed. The only thing the gravitational and electromagnetic force laws have in common is that they are both inverse square laws - and that is because we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions. Otherwise they have got absolutely nothing in common.

I can't be bothered with the rest of your stupid empty headed post.

 

[MikeCarra]

Thank God in heaven that there are people who will help Justatruthseeker avoid answering simple questions about hydrous minerals which is what this thread was about.

He will never have to admit his lack of knowledge about MINERALS at this rate!

Let the derailing continue!

 

[lesliedellow]

Thank God in heaven that there are people who will help Justatruthseeker avoid answering simple questions about hydrous minerals which is what this thread was about.

He will never have to admit his lack of knowledge about MINERALS at this rate!

Let the derailing continue!

Looking back through the thread, it seems to have been derailed by King Plonker himself. Justa knows nothing about anything, except how to make a fool of himself. No news there.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank God in heaven that there are people who will help Justatruthseeker avoid answering simple questions about hydrous minerals which is what this thread was about.

He will never have to admit his lack of knowledge about MINERALS at this rate!

Let the derailing continue!

So let's discuss this ringwoodite and olivine and how they are formed shall we? Shall we discuss the heat and pressure needed???

Shall we then ask how those materials ended up in comets of "claimed" ices, when every probe has reported hot and dry surfaces with but a trace of frost?????

Or shall we ignore that, and pretend all is well in wonderland where Fairie Dust reigns supreme?

Comets, which were the claimed source for water, being abandoned by scientists, with no explanation except that a form of mineral can contain it, but not create it. But we do know one way water can be created, don't we???? I'll let you figure that one out yourself, since you want to talk about ringwoodite and the water it contains.

 

[Elendur]

Not at all.
...

Ok.

...
The new ideas are right before your eyes in standard physics and plasma physics. Stay away from that Fairie Dust. You just really need to stop treating that plasma like a neutral gas. It's imperative that you do so, as direct emperical evidence allows no other alternative.
...

If you stop using the term "fairy dust", including variations, I'll follow your suggestion (marked in bold). I'll even throw in three further points, taking effect as soon as I can confirm you accepting:

1. I will stop questioning any list of theories, of your choice.
2. I will stop, indirectly and directly, promote any list of theories, of your choice.
3. You will be allowed to state that: "I agree with you that mainstream, regarding cosmology, is wrong.". Any variation of this statement will not be tolerated, other than change of the words "you" and "I".
(As for points 1,2: They apply provided I'm able to identify them)

Will you do that? Will you stop using that term?

 

[MikeCarra]

So let's discuss this ringwoodite and olivine and how they are formed shall we? Shall we discuss the heat and pressure needed???

OK

Ringwoodite is a polymorph of Olivine, a pretty standard mafic mineral in basalts, such as we have in the mantle.

Shall we then ask how those materials ended up in comets of "claimed" ices, when every probe has reported hot and dry surfaces with but a trace of frost?????

I was not aware that Ringwoodite came from comets. Remember, Ringwoodite and olivine in general is a normal phase that forms in basaltic rocks.

It is the Mg end of the Mg-Fe continuum that makes up the Olivine series. It is Mg2SiO4.

It comes out of mafic magmas at a relatively high temperatures according to the Bowen Reaction Series (we can get into deeper discussions of how detailed the Bowen Series actually is, but for now it's a good starting point)

There is no need for "comets" to bring ringwoodite to earth that I am aware of.

The debate, as I understood it, was between water coming to earth from comets versus more "juvenile water" from magmas. In this case the hydrous ringwoodite would carry water in its crystal structure which, upon the right conditions of temperature and pressure would dehydrate from the ringwoodite.

Or shall we ignore that, and pretend all is well in wonderland where Fairie Dust reigns supreme?

You don't seem to even be talking about minerals most of the time. I honestly have no idea what you are on about here.

Comets, which were the claimed source for water

-ahem- hypothesized source for water....

, being abandoned by scientists, with no explanation except that a form of mineral can contain it, but not create it. But we do know one way water can be created, don't we???? I'll let you figure that one out yourself, since you want to talk about ringwoodite and the water it contains.

Ahh, now I think I see your confusion. The ultimate question of where the water various hydrous phases contain came from may still be in play, but remember:

COMETS EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE. WATER EXISTS IN THE UNIVERSE APART FROM THE PLANET EARTH.

Water (H2O) is NOT UNIQUE to earth.

When the earth formed either it also coalesced with H2O (probably as ice, but since these are warmer bodies it was hypothesized for water to be harder to stick around here) or the water was brought to the earth through comets and asteroids, but either way the Ringwoodite and the mantle transition zone can apparently act as a "reservoir" of sorts within the earth's overall hydrologic cycle.

THIS article indicates that the earth may have been "born" with its water already in place (Nature, 2013) based on the water content of lunar rocks which would effectively "lock in" the signature of the water sources from the earth from which it formed. And since both the moon water (which is locked up in mineral phases) and earth water share commonalities in isotopic signatures it is likely that the earth already had its water when the moon was formed. But even then, there's still a lot of questions about the relative amount of heat and what it would do the water. There's even an hypothesis about water being brought in to the early planetary disks by Jupiter's gravity pulling in bodies from the outer part of the disk (hydrous phases in carbonaceous chondrites).

Where did all water ULTIMATELY come from? Well, the same place that EVERYTHING came from: space. We are made up of rocks and chunkers that accreted in the disk around our star and formed planets. They've found water out in outer solar system (HERE)

I don't believe anyone is saying that the water was necessarily synthesized in the mantle of the earth.

THIS ARTICLE form the JPLseems to call into question the cometary water hypothesis based on the isotopes of Hydrogen in Hale Bopp and other comets' water vapor. It shows a higher level of deuterium than we see in our own water supply.

Right now, as I understand it, the "bolide hypothesis" of water being brought in from elsewhere is not "DOA". Right now the problems are more around the isotopic signatures on comet water vs what we have on our water on earth.

I honestly don't see why you are making such grand claims that scientists are somehow abandoning bolide hypotheses for water coming to earth. You sound more like a creationist who finds someone using a negative term in an evolution paper to make grand claims about how evolution is washed up and no one believes it anymore!

Oops! I've already put in more detail into this one post than you will address. By all means feel free to ignore all the detailed SCIENCE and party on with the electric universe.

 

[Elendur]

...
You don't seem to even be talking about minerals most of the time. I honestly have no idea what you are on about here.
...

Dark matter, dark energy or anything that generally doesn't jive well with his world view is fairy dust (i.e. not necessarily limited to dark matter/energy, he's not very picky).

 

[Mainframes]

Justa - please point out the paper that shows comets are dry....