The Deep

[mzungu]

No chance of that. The idiot will quite happily lecture a chemist on chemistry, a biologist on biology, a physicist on physics and just by way of a finale, a brain surgeon on brain surgery.

He could quite usefully make use of the services of the latter.

And all on the basis of what? On at least a high school level of education in science? Nope. On the basis of Wikipedia articles he is barely literate enough to understand, and, in fact, doesn't understand.

Whenever I think of Justa, I can't get out of my mind's eye a mental image of somebody who is barely turned fourteen.

He can put professional trolls to shame! I nominate him Troll of the century!

 

[MikeCarra]

Just how long are you all going to stay uneducated about what is happening simply to hang onto stupid Fairie Dust beliefs??????

Let's do a quick reset here, Justa:

Where do YOU think the water ON EARTH came from?

 

[mzungu]

Let's do a quick reset here, Justa:

Where do YOU think the water ON EARTH came from?

I'll save you the trouble: According to Justa's EU/PC theory: The water came from electricity (energy) tuning into Water (mass) Electrifying stuff eh?

OK I will get serious. Just what do you think you will accomplish with the likes of Justa?

Waste of time if you ask me!

 

[MikeCarra]

OK I will get serious. Just what do you think you will accomplish with the likes of Justa?

Waste of time if you ask me!

I'm curious since he seems to be taking such a hardline against everyone on here and the "debate" is frankly getting confusing.

Is he claiming that the silicates ON EARTH are the source of the water on earth as it interacts with the solar wind? If that's the case, considering that silicates make up a HUGE fraction of the surface of the earth, why don't we see the more and more and more and more and more water forming every single day?

I think we all agree that water in the universe had some origin, but I'm not seeing how the "electric universe" provides a more OBVIOUS help to understanding how H and O combined in the early universe to form water versus any number of other high energy kinds of reactions or atomic starting materials.

His rhetoric is over-the-top, but I'm just not getting why he's so worked up and what, exactly, is the point of the OP.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what Justa's point is. So I need for him to explain simply (in light of the OP): what is the ultimate origin of water on earth and why does it matter that hydrous ringwoodite in the mantle appears to occasionally de-water?

 

[Mainframes]

I think he is hung up on proving that comets are dry and that the water detected only seems to be produced in the tail or coma.

Somehow, smashing a Silicon Dioxide molecule and then reating the resultant oxygen with hydrogen ions is more feasible than comets containing water in the first place....

 

[MikeCarra]

I think he is hung up on proving that comets are dry and that the water detected only seems to be produced in the tail or coma.

Somehow, smashing a Silicon Dioxide molecule and then reating the resultant oxygen with hydrogen ions is more feasible than comets containing water in the first place....

So in the fullness of the OP, since he's hung up on the "Dry Comet" thing, why is he so obsessed with hydrous minerals in the mantle of earth? Does he think that water on earth formed the same way as his "electric comet" hypothesis?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why is this thread still going? I stumbled back into it because it's still on my subscription list and I'm like "Wha...."

 

[Elendur]

Why is this thread still going? I stumbled back into it because it's still on my subscription list and I'm like "Wha...."

Mostly due to confusion.

 

[BL2KTN]

I think Just may have some sort of mental issue that causes him to obsess on a hair-brain theory of the universe... and then all of this just feeds that mental issue.

 

[Dizredux]

He can put professional trolls to shame! I nominate him Troll of the century!

I don't know. He would have to compete with some of the heavyweights on usenet when they were the king of the hill so to speak. Some of these were in categories of their own.

If anyone is interested here are the usenet kook awards.

Black Helicopter News: Award Winners 1994 -2012

 

[lesliedellow]

why is he so obsessed with hydrous minerals in the mantle of earth? Does he think that water on earth formed the same way as his "electric comet" hypothesis?

Read the OP. Justa is a creationist. Albeit one who doesn't seem to think there was a creation event, but that is just one of his many confusions.

In the Genesis story of the flood, waters springing up from a subterranean ocean was one of the sources of the flood water. So when a New Scientist article suggested that the water in the world's oceans originated within the Earth, that was music to his ears, and now he has a downer on any other theory of where the water in the oceans came from - such as it arriving in comets.

 

[lasthero]

Read the OP. Justa is a creationist. Albeit one who doesn't seem to think there was a creation event, but that is just one of his many confusions.

In the Genesis story of the flood, waters springing up from a subterranean ocean was one of the sources of the flood water. So when a New Scientist article suggested that the water in the world's oceans originated within the Earth, that was music to his ears, and now he has a downer on any other theory of where the water in the oceans came from - such as it arriving in comets.

Yeah, he's kind of like that. I'm reminded of an incident with him in a topic last year, where he presented an article about how snakes used to have legs as evidence for the creation story. He seemed convinced that snakes used to be able to walk on their hind limbs...even though the article clearly said they couldn't.

When Just sees something he likes, nothing can dissuade him from jumping to a conclusion. Even the thing itself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Read the OP. Justa is a creationist. Albeit one who doesn't seem to think there was a creation event, but that is just one of his many confusions.

In the Genesis story of the flood, waters springing up from a subterranean ocean was one of the sources of the flood water. So when a New Scientist article suggested that the water in the world's oceans originated within the Earth, that was music to his ears, and now he has a downer on any other theory of where the water in the oceans came from - such as it arriving in comets.

I wouldn't have a problem with comets being the source if even one single data from probes backed that assertion. Your own scientists in that article have abandoned the comet model as the source for the earth's water. They also know the problems with mainstream comet models.

Comet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This is seen in comet spectra as well as in sample return missions. More recent still, the materials retrieved demonstrate that the "comet dust resembles asteroid materials".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#cite_note-140 These new results have forced scientists to rethink the nature of comets and their distinction from asteroids."


So just why again are "you" refusing to rethink the nature of comets????? Any particular reason other than you prefer the same Fairie Dust models that have already been falsified forcing scientists to rethink their cometary models????

 

[lesliedellow]

Your own scientists in that article have abandoned the comet model as the source for the earth's water.

No they haven't. They have come up with an alternative hypothesis, which is not quite the same thing. Until the evidence is available to decide between them, or in favour of some third hypothesis, it remains an open question.

 

[SelfSim]

... So just why again are "you" refusing to rethink the nature of comets????? Any particular reason other than you prefer the same Fairie Dust models that have already been falsified forcing scientists to rethink their cometary models????

Lets get clear on this ... You are the one who has erroneously decided that 'the nature of comets' and terrestrial water acquisition mechanisms, have been constrained to the point of considering falsification.

(Presumably, so that you can once again, extol the virtues of your obsession of seeing 'Fairie Dust' everywhere).

You wish to discuss Science? I am yet to see any rolling from the ends of your fingertips to discuss!

 

[MikeCarra]

I wouldn't have a problem with comets being the source

Then WHAT, exactly, is the source of water on earth?

According to your hypothesis where did earth's water come from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No they haven't. They have come up with an alternative hypothesis, which is not quite the same thing. Until the evidence is available to decide between them, or in favour of some third hypothesis, it remains an open question.

No they haven't. Their alternative model is to say water exists in rocks in the earth, that does not say how it "got" there.


"The huge size of the reservoir throws new light on the origin of Earth's water. Some geologists think water arrived in comets as they struck the planet, but the new discovery supports an alternative idea that the oceans gradually oozed out of the interior of the early Earth."


So now we are going to pretend that an earth that was molten rock held onto its water despite the heat. Yah right.

"Now, it seems that water may after all have been present in Earth's building blocks. Simulations by Nora de Leeuw of University College London and colleagues suggest that the dust grains from which Earth formed had such a tenacious grip on water that they could have held onto the molecules despite the high temperatures."

So now we are going to apply physics to dust which doesn't match any laboratory experiment ever performed with heat. All because they know your comet models have been falsified.

"The presence of water in the Earth has long been an enigma. However, computer modelling techniques have shown that the adsorption of water onto the fractal surfaces of interplanetary dust particles, which are present in the planetary accretion disk, is sufficiently strong to provide a viable origin of terrestrial water."

So apparently the water just magically was already there and stuck to the dust. You got no theory of how water forms, except one. Electrical activity.

 

[Mainframes]

Would you car to explain the mechanism for the formation of water along with relevant supporting calculations and evidence please.

 

[RealityCheck]

So now we are going to pretend that an earth that was molten rock held onto its water despite the heat. Yah right.

Ever seen an air bubble in water?

Ever seen oil bubbles in water?

Have any idea where that's going?

So apparently the water just magically was already there and stuck to the dust.

No, nothing in science is ever a matter of "it just magically was already there." We leave the magic up to religions like yours.

You got no theory of how water forms, except one. Electrical activity.

So? Your point is.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ever seen an air bubble in water?

Which has what to do with the formation of that water????

Ever seen oil bubbles in water?

Which has what to do with the formation of that water????

Have any idea where that's going?

Which has what to do with the formation of that water????

Ever seen water in lava that didn't convert to steam and expand away explosively???

No, nothing in science is ever a matter of "it just magically was already there." We leave the magic up to religions like yours.

So? Your point is.....

So that water attached to the dust grains came from where?????? They are not proposing it magically appeared from the process, but that it attached to the dust grains from pre-existing water and then stayed attached despite the 5000K+ temperatures.

Re: Volatility of water at high temperatures
"Substances heated above certain temperatures or subjected to fast, large, energy input decompose or react by a variety of chemical mechanisms or pathways. Such reactions, unless carried out under strictly controlled conditions, are usually not reversible; what you get after the reaction can be very different from what was there before....

Somewhere between 2500 and 5000K the equilibrium begins to have no meaning because water, hydrogen and oxygen molecules break down into atoms and ions."

So even once it cools, it will not recombine without an additional source of energy after the cooling process has occurred. I.e. electrical energy.


So again, where did the water come from that attached to the dust grains????? Why are you avoiding the issue?