# Thread: Does the Diameter of the Earth Increase Over Time?

1. Topic: What is the diameter of the Earth and does it increase over time?

Eratosthenes

"Now the distance from S [Syrene] to A [Alexandria] was known by measurement to be 5,000 stades; it followed that the circumference of the earth was 250,000 stades. This is the figure given by Cleomedes, but Theon of Smyrna and Strabo both give it as 252,000 stades. The reason for the discrepancy is not known; it is possible that Eratosthenes corrected 250,000 to 252,000 for some reason, perhaps in order to get a figure divisible by 60 and, incidentally, a round number (700) of stades for one degree. If Pliny is right in saying that Eratosthenes made 40 stades equal to the Egyptian skoinos, then, taking the skoinos at 12,000 Royal cubits of 0.525 metres, we get 300 such cubits, or 157.5 metres, i.e. 516.73 feet, as the length of the stade. On this basis 252,000 stades works out to 24,662 miles, and the diameter of the earth to about 7,850 miles." (Heath 1921)

Theon of Smyrna

"Thus the whole diameter of the Earth would be approximately 80,182 stades. For three times this number plus a seventh of it was the perimeter of 252,000 stades."

Quoted from On Mathematics Useful for Understanding of Plato.

Also 7,850 miles.

Claudius Ptolemy

Ptolemy in the Geographia improved on the work of Eratosthenes. He calculated 1 degree as 500 stades, which using Heath's math works out to an Earth diameter of 5,607 miles.

Plus, according to one author, "he tended to overestimate the breadth of the whole known world." (Evans 1998)

Modern Measurements

Modern measurements are all over the place (as usual there is no scientific concensus). See here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/...Martinez.shtml

However, The North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) [Schwarz, Ed., NOAA, 1989] was determined by the NGS to be 12,756.274 km (7926.75 miles) on the major axis (equatorial), and 12,713.504 km (7900.17 miles) on the minor axis (polar), with an average diameter of 12,734.889 km (7913.46 miles).

So what is the diameter of the Earth and does it increase over time?

2.

3. to use ancient greek measurements as a measure of accuracy is of rather doubtful validity
after all, didn't the greeks think that the value of pi was 3 instead of 3.1415... ?

4. Given the technology the ancient Greeks had at their disposal, we can only admire them for getting within 20% of the actual radius. It's an intellectual feat comparable to designing a skyscraper using an abacus for computing. Goodness, they didn't know about America, Australia or Japan, and they had never seen the Earth from a baloon, not to mention a spaceship. They used strings with knots on them to measure distances, not laser interferometers!

If the diameter of the Earth had really increased that much, there would have been tremendous and catastrophic effects on the surface. Immense chasms opening in the midst of lands, or perhaps in the ocean floor which would then swallow much of the water and change the shorelines of continents. No, the differences in historic measurements are due to errors, period.

Any real change in the diameter of the Earth, due to the cooling of the core or any such stuff, must be so subtle that it could only be detected with 20th century technology.

5. Originally Posted by marnixR
to use ancient greek measurements as a measure of accuracy is of rather doubtful validity
after all, didn't the greeks think that the value of pi was 3 instead of 3.1415... ?
LOL. No. The Greeks discovered Pi and solved for it extremely accurately.

6. Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
Given the technology the ancient Greeks had at their disposal, we can only admire them for getting within 20% of the actual radius.
Why do you assume the Earth's radius is constant? Do you doubt Euclidean and Ptolemaic geometry?

If the diameter of the Earth had really increased that much, there would have been tremendous and catastrophic effects on the surface.
Yeah. They are called earthquakes and volcanoes.

Approximately 2600 earthquakes per day and 20 volcanic eruptions per day.

Immense chasms opening in the midst of lands, or perhaps in the ocean floor
Right they are called faults or mid-oceanic ridges.

which would then swallow much of the water and change the shorelines of continents.
Which is exactly what we observe actually. Ostia (meaning mouth [of the Tiber River]) Antica aka Portus Romanus which in ancient times was on the Mediterranean Sea but is now 3 miles inland on the Tiber.

No, the differences in historic measurements are due to errors, period.
LOL. How open minded of you.

Any real change in the diameter of the Earth, due to the cooling of the core or any such stuff, must be so subtle that it could only be detected with 20th century technology.
The growth of the planet has been detected with satellite laser ranging.

7. Originally Posted by Total Science
Topic: What is the diameter of the Earth and does it increase over time?

Eratosthenes

"Now the distance from S [Syrene] to A [Alexandria] was known by measurement to be 5,000 stades; it followed that the circumference of the earth was 250,000 stades. This is the figure given by Cleomedes, but Theon of Smyrna and Strabo both give it as 252,000 stades. The reason for the discrepancy is not known; it is possible that Eratosthenes corrected 250,000 to 252,000 for some reason, perhaps in order to get a figure divisible by 60 and, incidentally, a round number (700) of stades for one degree. If Pliny is right in saying that Eratosthenes made 40 stades equal to the Egyptian skoinos, then, taking the skoinos at 12,000 Royal cubits of 0.525 metres, we get 300 such cubits, or 157.5 metres, i.e. 516.73 feet, as the length of the stade. On this basis 252,000 stades works out to 24,662 miles, and the diameter of the earth to about 7,850 miles." (Heath 1921)
As far as I know there is quite some argument about what type of stadion should actually be applied. If you use different definitions, you come up with different results, some of which are actually very accurate. Another very credible reference is this one. It's an article by a mathematician, who is involved in archeoastronomy and knows ancient length definitions very well.

8. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
Given the technology the ancient Greeks had at their disposal, we can only admire them for getting within 20% of the actual radius.
Why do you assume the Earth's radius is constant? Do you doubt Euclidean and Ptolemaic geometry?
I do not understand this part.
Originally Posted by Total Science
If the diameter of the Earth had really increased that much, there would have been tremendous and catastrophic effects on the surface.
Yeah. They are called earthquakes and volcanoes.

Approximately 2600 earthquakes per day and 20 volcanic eruptions per day.

Immense chasms opening in the midst of lands, or perhaps in the ocean floor
Right they are called faults or mid-oceanic ridges.
I mean much greater scale than those. Think of the difference between 7850 miles and 5607 miles in diameter - where would all the volume go, or come from?
Originally Posted by Total Science
Any real change in the diameter of the Earth, due to the cooling of the core or any such stuff, must be so subtle that it could only be detected with 20th century technology.
The growth of the planet has been detected with satellite laser ranging.
I thought that was 20th century.

9. Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
Think of the difference between 7850 miles and 5607 miles in diameter - where would all the volume go, or come from?
The volume comes from the core, the core mantle boundary, and the mantle and it comes to the crust in the form of chemical compounds, minerals, iron rich rocks, and basalt pillow lava resulting in the modern oceans and mountain ranges that we see today. 200 mya (in the Triassic) there were no modern oceans, only one supercontinent with shallow seas.

10. Originally Posted by Total Science
The volume comes from the core, the core mantle boundary, and the mantle and it comes to the crust in the form of chemical compounds, minerals, iron rich rocks, and basalt pillow lava resulting in the modern oceans and mountain ranges that we see today. 200 mya (in the Triassic) there were no modern oceans, only one supercontinent with shallow seas.
Are you saying those stuffs react chemically as they come up to the surface, in ways which increase their volume? To that extent?

Thank you for the interesting map and description of the Triassic Earth. But ancient Greeks lived a couple thousand years ago, not 200 million.

11. OH NO! Again this map. I thought we passed that already in another thread. Here is another interesting result on the size of the Earth.

12. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
Think of the difference between 7850 miles and 5607 miles in diameter - where would all the volume go, or come from?
The volume comes from the core, the core mantle boundary, and the mantle and it comes to the crust in the form of chemical compounds, minerals, iron rich rocks, and basalt pillow lava resulting in the modern oceans and mountain ranges that we see today.
And yet another rabbit out of the hat to save a fixation. So, that means that the Earth is hollow? What about the iron core then? And I would doubt that geophysicists would be able to find correct solutions from acoustic waves through the Earth to pinpoint the epicentre of an earthquake in that case.

13. Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
Thank you for the interesting map and description of the Triassic Earth.
You're welcome... :-D

But ancient Greeks lived a couple thousand years ago, not 200 million.
What clued you in?

14. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Here is another interesting result on the size of the Earth.
7,926.3812 miles? Wow that's a lot of growth.

15. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
So, that means that the Earth is hollow?
Why do you think the Earth is hollow?

What about the iron core then?

And I would doubt that geophysicists would be able to find correct solutions from acoustic waves through the Earth to pinpoint the epicentre of an earthquake in that case.
Seismology, geology, and astrophysics are all we have to go on.

16. [quote="Total Science"]
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
So, that means that the Earth is hollow?
Why do you think the Earth is hollow?[/quote]Official Warning: You are perfectly well aware that Dishmaster does not think the Earth is hollow. He is pointing out that a hollow Earth is a probable consequence of your claims.
Deliberate behaviour of this type will not be tolerated here. Address questions directly, stop playing all the sophomoric debating tricks and you might just survive another day or two here.

17. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
So, that means that the Earth is hollow?
Why do you think the Earth is hollow?
I don't. But obviously, you do. When you say that the additional volume comes from the deeper layers of the Earth, I understand this as a re-distribution of core and mantle material up to the Earth's surface. This means that this material is now missing inside the Earth, i.e. it is hollow. Larger volume, same mass, more space.

18. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
So, that means that the Earth is hollow?
Why do you think the Earth is hollow?
I don't. But obviously, you do.
You are lying. For the record, I do not believe the Earth is hollow.

When you say that the additional volume comes from the deeper layers of the Earth, I understand this as a re-distribution of core and mantle material up to the Earth's surface.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...ass-stress.htm

This means that this material is now missing inside the Earth, i.e. it is hollow. Larger volume, same mass, more space.
No. Excess mass is generated at the core mantle boundary through controlled nuclear fusion. It acts like a deck of cards. The only porosity exists in the crust.

19. Excess mass is generated at the core mantle boundary through controlled nuclear fusion.
And where do the participants in this fusion come from?

20. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Excess mass is generated at the core mantle boundary through controlled nuclear fusion.
And where do the participants in this fusion come from?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...he-earth-.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...ass-stress.htm

21. Originally Posted by TS
200 mya (in the Triassic) there were no modern oceans, only one supercontinent with shallow seas.

So now you are saying yourself that the process you claim to be responsible for the earths' growth started 200 Ma back in time. Also the age of oceanic crust puts this starting point as a constraint on your .....for brevity's sake let's call it "theory". And don't claim that this is not a valid scientific assumption (like in another thread, I'm right now just too lazy to wade through all the tiring do-wallop to dig it up as a reference). So why did this process start 200 Ma back? And again, where did all the water come from to fill today's oceans. I am waiting for an answer. To avoid your tactics of prewtending not to understand my question, let me clarify this for you: If the surface of the earth did not show any variations in elevation (i.e. no Himalayans or Mariana Trenches resulting in a flat surface) then the water present on the planet would cover the surface 800 m deep. Now if - as you are claiming - the diamter of the earth was smaller 200 Ma back, the water level would have been even higher. There is NO evidence whatsoever that this was the case. No sediment coverage all over the planet to show that the water covered the entire planet. So 200 Ma there was only enough water to fill the shallo seas you claim existed. So not only did the proposed growth of earth start 200 Ma back but also the amount of water present on earth increased just back then. Pretty convenient, don't you think. And as Dishmaster pointed out, even if you converted the entire energy the sun put out for the last 200 Ma into mass, then this mass would be insufficient to account for the growth of the earth.

22. Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
So now you are saying yourself that the process you claim to be responsible for the earths' growth started 200 Ma back in time. Also the age of oceanic crust puts this starting point as a constraint on your .....for brevity's sake let's call it "theory". And don't claim that this is not a valid scientific assumption (like in another thread, I'm right now just too lazy to wade through all the tiring do-wallop to dig it up as a reference). So why did this process start 200 Ma back?
Your question is basically, "why did the supercontinent break apart?" Does plate tectonics have an explanation for why Pangea broke apart? The answer is an emphatic no. However expansion tectonics does have an explanation. "Up to now about two thirds of the original number of hydrogen nuclei have been transformed, in two phases (4000-200 and 200-0 m.y. ago), into crust and mantle bulk matter, while the rest remains to be transformed" (Tassos 1998). See here: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...ass-stress.htm

And again, where did all the water come from to fill today's oceans. I am waiting for an answer.
Good question. I suspect either you already know the answer or else you'll be waiting for the rest of eternity.

Plate tectonics does not know where all the water came from that fills today's oceans.

Hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the universe and oxygen is the third most common chemical element in the universe.

It is reasonable that hydrogen and oxygen come from the mantle and volcanoes and that the oceans were formed from these.

To avoid your tactics of prewtending not to understand my question, let me clarify this for you: If the surface of the earth did not show any variations in elevation (i.e. no Himalayans or Mariana Trenches resulting in a flat surface) then the water present on the planet would cover the surface 800 m deep. Now if - as you are claiming - the diamter of the earth was smaller 200 Ma back, the water level would have been even higher. There is NO evidence whatsoever that this was the case.
Actually the evidence is that the contintents were covered in water. All of the marine fossils we find older than 80-180 m.y.a. are found in a continental environment i.e. on land. There is no such thing as an ocean fossil older than 180 m.y. old.

No sediment coverage all over the planet to show that the water covered the entire planet.
No one is claiming that water covered "the entire planet."

So 200 Ma there was only enough water to fill the shallo seas you claim existed. So not only did the proposed growth of earth start 200 Ma back but also the amount of water present on earth increased just back then. Pretty convenient, don't you think. And as Dishmaster pointed out, even if you converted the entire energy the sun put out for the last 200 Ma into mass, then this mass would be insufficient to account for the growth of the earth.
Assumptions cannot be considered scientific.

23. Hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the universe and oxygen is the third most common chemical element in the universe.

It is reasonable that hydrogen and oxygen come from the mantle and volcanoes and that the oceans were formed from these
This is correct for the universe as a whole but for earth those numbers look really different. Here the most abundant element is actually oxygen -by far. And hydrogen is not even in the top ten list. So that really creates a problem for the water comming from the mantle or crust. There simply is not enough hydrogen to form the water. Brush up your chemistry.
If however the earth was always the size it is right now then there is no problem. And the way it looks right now the water came from comets and meteorites during the early stages of earth's development.

Up to now about two thirds of the original number of hydrogen nuclei have been transformed, in two phases (4000-200 and 200-0 m.y. ago), into crust and mantle bulk matter, while the rest remains to be transformed" (Tassos 1998)
ooops, why would the mechanism change so conveniently right during this time?

Actually the evidence is that the contintents were covered in water. All of the marine fossils we find older than 80-180 m.y.a. are found in a continental environment i.e. on land. There is no such thing as an ocean fossil older than 180 m.y. old
Welll there might be marine strata in places that today are continental (like the area I come from) but how do you explain that below those marine layers there are sandstone layers clearly formed in an arid evironment (and the time frame between both is just a couple of million years? And how do you get the idea thatt there are no marin efossils that are older than 180 Ma?????

Sheesh

Pick cheries as long as you like, the evidence for plate tectonics is absolutely overwhelming.

24. All of the marine fossils we find older than 80-180 m.y.a. are found in a continental environment i.e. on land.
Please explain how marine fossils I collected from the Scottish coast, dated to the Ordovician period, required me to get my feet wet to recover them. They were deposited in a marine environment and they were found in a marine environment.

25. The primary theory as to where the water on Earth came from originally was from space. In Earth's early years, it was bombarded by space debris big time! Much of that debris contained heaps of water. Today we have oceans with E18 tonnes of water, but the Earth's crust is E21 tonnes. Thus the water is not actually a big part of the total.

However, the Earth is still being bombarded from space, albeit to a far lesser extent. To claim that the Earth's diameter is increasing is almost certainly a correct claim, due to this extra material. However, over the time period between now and the ancient Greeks, the increase is miniscule. The difference between modern and ancient measures of the Earth's diameter is simply the result of the error factor in the measurement technique.

26. Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
the way it looks right now the water came from comets and meteorites during the early stages of earth's development.
Originally Posted by skeptic
The primary theory as to where the water on Earth came from originally was from space. In Earth's early years, it was bombarded by space debris big time! Much of that debris contained heaps of water.

This fits my own pet cosmological hypothesis so well, I'd brushed it off as wishful thinking.

This water was not diffuse condensate out of primordial disc (like a band), but actual hunks of water plopping onto terrestrial surface?

27. Originally Posted by Pong
This water was not diffuse condensate out of primordial disc (like a band), but actual hunks of water plopping onto terrestrial surface?
No. It was a primary constituent of the comets that impacted the primitive Earth. Recall that during the early stages of the formation of the solar system orbits were not yet stable and there were vast numbers of comets, asteroids and meteorites.
It is probable that much of the initial water was lost when the proto-Earth was struck by a Mars sized planetoid - the same event that led to the formation of the moon. It was the subsequent impacts that we believe provided much/most of the water that forms the oceans.
Undoubtedly some of the water came from the degassing of the mantle, reaching the surface through volcanic eruptions, but the consensus view is that this would be inadequate to provide the observed volume.

28. Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
If the surface of the earth did not show any variations in elevation (i.e. no Himalayans or Mariana Trenches resulting in a flat surface) then the water present on the planet would cover the surface 800 m deep. Now if - as you are claiming - the diamter of the earth was smaller 200 Ma back, the water level would have been even higher. There is NO evidence whatsoever that this was the case. No sediment coverage all over the planet to show that the water covered the entire planet.
Please note that I am not claiming to know anything about geology, I am just confused by the above quote.

Okay, my understanding is, rivers run down stream, eroding their banks, rolling rocks over each other so they slowly turn to dust and gradually all this sediment is washed downstream. Rivers slow down as they near the coast so the sediment starts to collect in river mouths, estuaries and harbours and some of it is washed out to sea where it sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

Okay. Then we get the proposed situation described above where the earth is flat, no Himalaya, no Marianas Trench etc, the surface of the (spherical) earth is more or less smooth. The earth is also covered by a 800m layer of water over its entire surface.

Question: Where does the sediment come from?

Zitterbewegung says there is no sediment, as though that proves something. But I am confused about where this sediment is supposed to come from. With no rivers, where does the sediment come from? I don't understand how we would expect to see sediment in the situation he described.

There would be ocean currents, admitted. Even if there were no thermal currents there would be some part of the ocean facing the moon and that would be lifted up by the gravitational attraction so there would, at the very least, be what we might refer to as a gravity-induced current. But this would be very weak and act on the land only in a submarine sense, there would be no tide rolling up the beach because there would be no beach. Would this submarine current, in what is essentially shallow water (800m is about 1/14 the depth of the current ocean) really cause sufficient erosion to show sufficient sediment to prove the hypothesis. In other words, does the lack of sediment actually prove anything?

He further says there is no evidence for the situation he described. So my question is, what evidence would he expect to see if the described events had happened? What I'm thinking here is that absence of evidence is not, of itself, evidence of absence; simply saying there is no evidence doesn't prove anything at all.

29. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by Pong
This water was not diffuse condensate out of primordial disc (like a band), but actual hunks of water plopping onto terrestrial surface?
No. It was a primary constituent of the comets that impacted the primitive Earth. Recall that during the early stages of the formation of the solar system orbits were not yet stable and there were vast numbers of comets, asteroids and meteorites.
It is probable that much of the initial water was lost when the proto-Earth was struck by a Mars sized planetoid - the same event that led to the formation of the moon. It was the subsequent impacts that we believe provided much/most of the water that forms the oceans.
Undoubtedly some of the water came from the degassing of the mantle, reaching the surface through volcanic eruptions, but the consensus view is that this would be inadequate to provide the observed volume.
I understand some people "reverse engineered" the planets and hypothesized they're built up from discrete planetoids of fairly uniform mass and homogeneous (though different) composition. Like a collection of glass, steel, plastic marbles. So, Mars was built of so many this and that, Earth was built of so many these and those, etc. The balls of water I didn't know, thanks. I get the picture of a lot more mass orbiting the sun than we have now... most of it spun off or spun in, huh? And all that's left was once swinging through unsettled/unsettling orbits?

So the early system featured a chaos of water balls orbiting the sun, likely far more mass of water than in orbit now? There were many of these in all sorts of orbits?

Do you realize that puts very good odds on warm water, sunbathed asteroids?

Then you have these wet fertile asteroids getting mixed up with comets scooping through them, depositing into others, spreading "stuff" around. And then some splash down on Earth. Surely if Earth life originated in primordial disc water, that same life ended up all over the system and even more of it spun away.

Much to ponder here. :-D

30. Originally Posted by numbers

Question: Where does the sediment come from?

Zitterbewegung says there is no sediment, as though that proves something. But I am confused about where this sediment is supposed to come from. With no rivers, where does the sediment come from? I don't understand how we would expect to see sediment in the situation he described.

There would be ocean currents, admitted. Even if there were no thermal currents there would be some part of the ocean facing the moon and that would be lifted up by the gravitational attraction so there would, at the very least, be what we might refer to as a gravity-induced current. But this would be very weak and act on the land only in a submarine sense, there would be no tide rolling up the beach because there would be no beach. Would this submarine current, in what is essentially shallow water (800m is about 1/14 the depth of the current ocean) really cause sufficient erosion to show sufficient sediment to prove the hypothesis. In other words, does the lack of sediment actually prove anything?

He further says there is no evidence for the situation he described. So my question is, what evidence would he expect to see if the described events had happened? What I'm thinking here is that absence of evidence is not, of itself, evidence of absence; simply saying there is no evidence doesn't prove anything at all.
Not all sediments are caused by erosion. Radiolaria and foraminifera are organisms that form sediments composed by their shells, some of which actually are of considerable depths (think Dover and Ruegen Cliffs). If the earth was covered by water we should find those sediments consistently all over the planet. Secondly, submerged plutonic rocks undergo severe chemical changes due to contact with water e.g clay formation from feldspars. This process is very fast, if you think in geological timeframes. A phenomenon like this could not possibly be overlooked. There's your evidence of absence. Furthermore deposits of evaporites interspersed with layers of rocks formed in an arid environment can not be explained by an earth covered in water.
Also how do you explain the fact that sediments formed in an arid (i.e. dry) environment in some places are covered with marine sediments. With an expanding earth? Be my guest.

Total Science in my oppinion is a nincompoop who ignores all evidence contradicting his belief-system, very much like the Young Earth Creationists. For example, the fossil alignment of iron-oxide particles shows that the continents (or rather what we see of them today) were placed at different latitudes which is in no way consistent with expanding earth "hypothesis". He totally ignores this interesting little fact as it would blow gaping holes in his woo-woo.

Anyway, he's also playing the "science of the gaps" card. Allthough there are not many gaps in the explanation of observable phenomena, he consistently goes:"There, plate tectonics has no explanation for 5% observable facts, expanding earth hypothesis has an explanation for those gaps. Therefore your explanation is wrong and mine is right!!" But he consistenly ignores the fact that his theory has no explanation for the other 95%."

31. A widely discussed candidate of asteroids that served as water reservoirs are the carbonaceous chondrites. A very recent scientific publication discussing the implications for the formation of the oceans can be found here. In its introduction, it is mentioned that some oceans were already present 3.8 billion years ago.

32. Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
This is correct for the universe as a whole but for earth those numbers look really different. Here the most abundant element is actually oxygen -by far.
Exactly. That proves my point.

And hydrogen is not even in the top ten list.

Huh?

The Earth was formed from a giant gaseous protoplanet: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1006215141.htm

"For the past 50 years or so, scientists have been talking about dust condensing at low pressures and gradually becoming pebbles, then boulders, etc. and building planets. While that process goes on to some extent, it would lead to oxidized planets without massive cores. I think in the main the planets rained out of the centers of giant gaseous protoplanets, which would account for their massive cores and, in the case of Earth, for her two component surface." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, October 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.
So that really creates a problem for the water comming from the mantle or crust. There simply is not enough hydrogen to form the water.
See above.

Brush up on your geology and astrophysics.

And the way it looks right now the water came from comets and meteorites during the early stages of earth's development.
If you say so. Can I borrow your time machine to confirm that?

Up to now about two thirds of the original number of hydrogen nuclei have been transformed, in two phases (4000-200 and 200-0 m.y. ago), into crust and mantle bulk matter, while the rest remains to be transformed" (Tassos 1998)
ooops, why would the mechanism change so conveniently right during this time?
Because that's what the geology and chemistry shows happened...

And how do you get the idea thatt there are no marin efossils that are older than 180 Ma?????

Sheesh
It's a geological fact that there is no fossil in the ocean older than 180 m.y. old. Prove me wrong.

Pick cheries as long as you like, the evidence for plate tectonics is absolutely overwhelming.

"Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1976

33. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
All of the marine fossils we find older than 80-180 m.y.a. are found in a continental environment i.e. on land.
Please explain how marine fossils I collected from the Scottish coast, dated to the Ordovician period, required me to get my feet wet to recover them. They were deposited in a marine environment and they were found in a marine environment.
The coastline of the continental margin is not the ocean.

34. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
A widely discussed candidate of asteroids that served as water reservoirs are the carbonaceous chondrites. A very recent scientific publication discussing the implications for the formation of the oceans can be found here. In its introduction, it is mentioned that some oceans were already present 3.8 billion years ago.
Carbonaceous chondrites obviously have an abiogenic origin.

35. To Total Science

There are an enormous number of ancient marine fossils. This includes jellyfish impressions in mudstone, and ediacarans, both from preCambrian strata, which dates back to before 600 million years ago.

In addition, in Western Australia, are stromatolite fossils that have been dated back to 3.6 billion years ago. These photosynthetic bacteria still grow and form similar masses of cemented particles in the sea today. I have stood on the shores of Shark Bay and looked at them - most impressive.

36. Originally Posted by skeptic
To Total Science

There are an enormous number of ancient marine fossils. This includes jellyfish impressions in mudstone, and ediacarans, both from preCambrian strata, which dates back to before 600 million years ago.
Every single one of them was found in a continental environment.

In addition, in Western Australia, are stromatolite fossils that have been dated back to 3.6 billion years ago. These photosynthetic bacteria still grow and form similar masses of cemented particles in the sea today. I have stood on the shores of Shark Bay and looked at them - most impressive.
The last time I checked Western Australia is not located in the ocean.

37. Originally Posted by Total Science
Carbonaceous chondrites obviously have an abiogenic origin.
Yes, they are a class of meteorites that were present in a large abundance during the era of the young Earth. It seems that they contributed a considerable amount of the water that is now on Earth. Most of them hit the Earth when it was still young.

38. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by Total Science
Carbonaceous chondrites obviously have an abiogenic origin.
Yes, they are a class of meteorites that were present in a large abundance during the era of the young Earth. It seems that they contributed a considerable amount of the water that is now on Earth. Most of them hit the Earth when it was still young.
Therefore the hydrocarbons on them cannot be so-called "fossil fuel": http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

The carbonaceous meteorites, including particularly the carbonaceous chondrites, are meteorites whose chemical composition includes carbon in quantities ranging from a few tenths of a percent to approximately six percent, by mass.1-5 The age of the carbonaceous meteorites is typically 3-4.5 billion years; and their origins clearly abiotic. The mineral structures in these rocks establish that the carbonaceous meteorites have existed at very low temperatures, much below the freezing point of water, effectively since the time of their original formation. Such thermal history of the carbonaceous meteorites eliminates any probability that there ever existed on them life, or biological matter.6 The evidence obtained from scientific investigations of the carbon material in carbonaceous meteorites has destroyed many claims which assert a biological connection between natural petroleum and biological matter.

Significantly, much of the carbon material of the carbonaceous meteorites consists of hydrocarbons, as both solids and in liquid form.1, 5, 7, 8 However, the petroleum material contained in carbonaceous meteorites cannot be considered to be the origin of the natural petroleum found in the near-surface crust of the Earth. The heating which inevitably accompanied the impact process during the accretion of meteorites into the Earth at the time of its formation would almost certainly have caused decomposition of most of their contained hydrocarbon molecules. The carbonaceous meteorites provided the Earth with its carbon (albeit much of it delivered in the form of hydrocarbons) but not its hydrocarbons or natural petroleum. (The processes by which hydrocarbons evolve from the native materials of the Earth are described, and demonstrated, in the following article.)

39. Originally Posted by Total Science
Therefore the hydrocarbons on them cannot be so-called "fossil fuel":
No one is claiming that organic compounds on meteorites are fossil fuels. No is claiming that haddock turn purple if shown copies of a Dali painting. Are there any other 'statements' that no one has made and no one believes that you would like to denounce?

40. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
No one is claiming that organic compounds on meteorites are fossil fuels.
I must know hundreds of people named "no one."

41. To Total Science.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are clear signs of sediments laid down in oceanic environments. Thick layers of sandstone cannot form in any other environment. Lakes do not survive long enough for such strata to form. When fossils are found in marine sedimentary rocks, they are fossils that came from a marine environment. And there are literally millions that are more than 200 million years old, including clear cut marine fossils over 3 billion years old.

42. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
No one is claiming that organic compounds on meteorites are fossil fuels.
To me it tastes like evasive manoeuvres. He is trying to distract the discussion from the generation of the oceans to something else (it started with an allegedly growing Earth, I'd like to add). I haven't seen an answer to the chondrite-water connection from him, yet.

43. Originally Posted by Total Science
Therefore the hydrocarbons on them cannot be so-called "fossil fuel": http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
What hydrocarbons? I was talking about water! Stay on topic!

44. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
This is correct for the universe as a whole but for earth those numbers look really different. Here the most abundant element is actually oxygen -by far.
Exactly. That proves my point.
This actually proves nothing. And the oxigen is bound to silicon forming so called "silicates".

Originally Posted by Total Science
And hydrogen is not even in the top ten list.

Huh?
There is a list of the most abundant elements on earth. Hydrogen is't even in the top ten of this list.

Originally Posted by Total Science
The Earth was formed from a giant gaseous protoplanet: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1006215141.htm

"For the past 50 years or so, scientists have been talking about dust condensing at low pressures and gradually becoming pebbles, then boulders, etc. and building planets. While that process goes on to some extent, it would lead to oxidized planets without massive cores. I think in the main the planets rained out of the centers of giant gaseous protoplanets, which would account for their massive cores and, in the case of Earth, for her two component surface." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, October 2008
One word: volatility.

Originally Posted by Total Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.
So that really creates a problem for the water comming from the mantle or crust. There simply is not enough hydrogen to form the water.
See above.

Brush up on your geology and astrophysics.
That's a good one................
F.Y.I.: BSc in Mineralogy and MSc in Materials Science and Engineering on my side, how about you?
And how much hydrogen exactly? For all boreholes in the world or just this one?
And if I understand you corrrectly, you mean that the all (or an significant amount thereof) water comes form volcanic sources?? Hmmmm. this creates this li'l problem that the acidity of the earth's oceans does not fit this theory.

Originally Posted by Total Science

And the way it looks right now the water came from comets and meteorites during the early stages of earth's development.
If you say so. Can I borrow your time machine to confirm that?
Hmmmmm....argument from icredulity (as well as ignorance). That really convinces me. I'd rather go with the results.
Again F.Y.I. Reality is that thingy that doesn't go away when you ignore it.

Originally Posted by Total Science
Up to now about two thirds of the original number of hydrogen nuclei have been transformed, in two phases (4000-200 and 200-0 m.y. ago), into crust and mantle bulk matter, while the rest remains to be transformed" (Tassos 1998)
Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
ooops, why would the mechanism change so conveniently right during this time?
Because that's what the geology and chemistry shows happened...
No, this is your fancy-shmancy interpretation of .....yeah, what exactly. Please show me the "chemistry" and "geology" that proves this statement. I still have to see convincing evidence. As a matter of fact, there is none.

Originally Posted by Total Science
And how do you get the idea that there are no marine fossils that are older than 180 Ma?????
Sheesh
It's a geological fact that there is no fossil in the ocean older than 180 m.y. old. Prove me wrong.
First: You have to show that your claims are correct, that's the way this game is played.
Second: True Believer behaviour. There is - due to well explained facts that have nothing to do with expanding earth - no ocean floor older than 200 Ma but yet you challenge me to show you marine fossils older than that, found in an ocean?? You have to really be shitting me or you are smoking something that impairs logical thinking.

And my other questions still is unanswered. How come that arid deposits are followed by marine sediments in numerous places, often times in several consecutive cycles??
Let me guess, your answer will be a "huh?" or a statement like: "this not a valid scientific assumption!" or some such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Total Science

Pick cheries as long as you like, the evidence for plate tectonics is absolutely overwhelming.

"Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1976

So you are saying we can measure the spreading of the continents along the mid-oceanic ridges but not the movement of the Indian sub-continent towards
Asia and the closing of the mediterranean by the nothward movement of Africa?

Let me spell it out for you: C-H-E-R-R-Y P-I-C-K-I-N-G

Oh, and BTW, how do you explain the morphology and composition of the west coast of the Nort American continent? It just happened?? Lemme guess, you have no clue what I am talking about, right?

45. Originally Posted by skeptic
To Total Science.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are clear signs of sediments laid down in oceanic environments. Thick layers of sandstone cannot form in any other environment. Lakes do not survive long enough for such strata to form. When fossils are found in marine sedimentary rocks, they are fossils that came from a marine environment. And there are literally millions that are more than 200 million years old, including clear cut marine fossils over 3 billion years old.
There is no ocean sediment in the world older than 180 million years old. Every marine fossil older than 180 myo known to man was found in a continental environment.

Either you don't know what you're talking about or else you're just lying.

46. Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
One word: volatility.
Wow, well that sure proves there is no hydrogen in the mantle...

F.Y.I.: BSc in Mineralogy and MSc in Materials Science and Engineering on my side, how about you?
B.A. Philosophy, B.A. History of Science and Mathematics, M.S. Geology.

And how much hydrogen exactly?
The amount of hydrogen contained in the Earth's mantle is beyond computation i.e. infinite.

For all boreholes in the world or just this one?
Well first you should focus on the one. Once you realize that there is hydrogen there, then you can start to study the others.

And if I understand you corrrectly, you mean that the all (or an significant amount thereof) water comes form volcanic sources?? Hmmmm. this creates this li'l problem that the acidity of the earth's oceans does not fit this theory.
No acid degasses from volcanoes? Wow. Amazing.

Originally Posted by Total Science
And the way it looks right now the water came from comets and meteorites during the early stages of earth's development.
If you say so. Can I borrow your time machine to confirm that?
Hmmmmm....argument from icredulity (as well as ignorance). That really convinces me. I'd rather go with the results.
Again F.Y.I. Reality is that thingy that doesn't go away when you ignore it.
Does that mean you won't let me borrow your time machine?

No, this is your fancy-shmancy interpretation of .....yeah, what exactly. Please show me the "chemistry" and "geology" that proves this statement. I still have to see convincing evidence. As a matter of fact, there is none.
If you can show me an ocean sediment older than 200 myo, I will cut you a personal check for \$1 million.

So you are saying we can measure the spreading of the continents along the mid-oceanic ridges but not the movement of the Indian sub-continent towards
Asia and the closing of the mediterranean by the nothward movement of Africa?
I am saying subduction is a myth. It's physically impossible for crustal basalt to subduct into mantle peridotite.

Oh, and BTW, how do you explain the morphology and composition of the west coast of the Nort American continent? It just happened?? Lemme guess, you have no clue what I am talking about, right?
Mountains are formed by oceanic seafloor spreading, excess mass stress, and the growth of the Earth.

47. To Total Science

When I studied geology, we went on a field trip to collect marine fossils from a Jurassic (200 million year old) set of strata. Marine mussels, marine cephalopods etc.

However, there are, as I said, marine fossils from Pre-Cambrian strata, over 600 million years old. This is not an opinion. It is established science.

The west Australia stromatolites were marine, at 3.6 billion years old. Of course all these fossils are from strata that have since been uplifted above the sea. So what? Land rising and falling is a continuous process and can be seen to this day. In my country, there are several airfields (Napier and Wellington) that were underwater mid 19th Century, and have been lifted out of the sea by earthquakes. The 1855 Wellington earthquake lifted some hundreds of hectares out of the sea, and the land now used for its airfield was part of it.

Thus, marine sedimentary rock that is now above the sea is common.

48. Originally Posted by Total Science
I am saying subduction is a myth. It's physically impossible for crustal basalt to subduct into mantle peridotite.
no doubt you have the physics all worked to prove this statement ?

mind you, lord Kelvin was ever so sure that he had proven that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible

49. Originally Posted by skeptic
To Total Science

When I studied geology, we went on a field trip to collect marine fossils from a Jurassic (200 million year old) set of strata. Marine mussels, marine cephalopods etc.

However, there are, as I said, marine fossils from Pre-Cambrian strata, over 600 million years old. This is not an opinion. It is established science.
Where did you find those fossils?

The west Australia stromatolites were marine, at 3.6 billion years old.
Western Australia is not in the ocean...

50. Originally Posted by Total Science
The west Australia stromatolites were marine, at 3.6 billion years old.
Western Australia is not in the ocean...
Total Science, that's now several times (in this and other threads) that you've come up with this canard : just because some place on earth is part of a continent does not have to mean that it always was

some sediments can be recognised as being deep-ocean sediments from their crystallography, sedimentology and fossil content, never mind where they reside in the here and now

51. Saying Australia is not in the ocean is not a canard because that is precisely my point. Why do you think Australia is in the ocean?

Can you read the dates on the following map? Yes or no? A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.

52. Originally Posted by Total Science
If you can show me an ocean sediment older than 200 myo, I will cut you a personal check for \$1 million.
*Pong is inexplicably interested by the debate*

OK. So you want marine sediment (anything initially aggregated underwater), more than 200 years old, and it must be found now on ocean floor (not shelves of existing continents)?

It's an interesting challenge. I must look for rock that rode up onto continent (to survive Pangaea) and then sunk again onto spreading oceanic plate. I guess I can find it for you. Anyone suggest a better solution?

53. Total Science

This is crazy. Sedimentary rocks are formed under water. They cannot be formed any other way. Most are formed in the sea, which is clearly shown by simple tests, where materials are found within the sediments that are only formed under the sea. This includes both minerals and fossils. If a fossil is found in sedimentary rock and that fossil is of a marine organism, where do you think that sedimentary rock was formed?

Land rises and falls. As I pointed out earlier, this is not something that we see only from geological history. We can see it happening today. Land erodes and ends up under the ocean, or sea levels rise and flood the land. All the harbours of the world today were above the sea 20,000 years ago, during the last glaciation period. However, land also rises. I gave examples from New Zealand where earthquakes raised large amounts of land above the sea - Napier in 1931, and Wellington in 1855.

The process of land rising is also observable in Iceland and in many other places. The Himalayas are rising continuously. The reverse can be seen in many places where actual cities have been discovered under the sea, such as off Egypt and off India.

If land rise above the sea, or sinks beneath the sea today, and can be observed doing so, it is not a vast stretch of the imagination to say that this has been going on for a long time, and millions of years ago, much of today's land was then submerged.

Geologists today observe sedimentary rock that was definitely laid under the sea, and this is found in all geological epochs. Marine fossils are known for all time periods. Indeed, the earliest fossils were ALL marine.

To your query - where did we pick up marine fossils of the Jurassic period? That was at Port Waikato. I came home with a nice pile of belemnites (a kind of squid), marine mussels, and a couple of small ammonites. All marine.

54. Originally Posted by Pong
Originally Posted by Total Science
If you can show me an ocean sediment older than 200 myo, I will cut you a personal check for \$1 million.
*Pong is inexplicably interested by the debate*

OK. So you want marine sediment (anything initially aggregated underwater), more than 200 years old, and it must be found now on ocean floor (not shelves of existing continents)?

It's an interesting challenge. I must look for rock that rode up onto continent (to survive Pangaea) and then sunk again onto spreading oceanic plate. I guess I can find it for you. Anyone suggest a better solution?
Clearly you have some reading comprehension difficulties. I said "ocean" not "marine."

Originally Posted by Total Science
All of the marine fossils we find older than 80-180 m.y.a. are found in a continental environment i.e. on land. There is no such thing as an ocean fossil older than 180 m.y. old.

55. Originally Posted by skeptic
Total Science

This is crazy. Sedimentary rocks are formed under water. They cannot be formed any other way. Most are formed in the sea, which is clearly shown by simple tests, where materials are found within the sediments that are only formed under the sea. This includes both minerals and fossils. If a fossil is found in sedimentary rock and that fossil is of a marine organism, where do you think that sedimentary rock was formed?

Land rises and falls. As I pointed out earlier, this is not something that we see only from geological history. We can see it happening today. Land erodes and ends up under the ocean, or sea levels rise and flood the land. All the harbours of the world today were above the sea 20,000 years ago, during the last glaciation period. However, land also rises. I gave examples from New Zealand where earthquakes raised large amounts of land above the sea - Napier in 1931, and Wellington in 1855.

The process of land rising is also observable in Iceland and in many other places. The Himalayas are rising continuously. The reverse can be seen in many places where actual cities have been discovered under the sea, such as off Egypt and off India.

If land rise above the sea, or sinks beneath the sea today, and can be observed doing so, it is not a vast stretch of the imagination to say that this has been going on for a long time, and millions of years ago, much of today's land was then submerged.

Geologists today observe sedimentary rock that was definitely laid under the sea, and this is found in all geological epochs. Marine fossils are known for all time periods. Indeed, the earliest fossils were ALL marine.
Granted and absolutely irrelevant. There is a distinction between "ocean" and "marine."

To your query - where did we pick up marine fossils of the Jurassic period? That was at Port Waikato. I came home with a nice pile of belemnites (a kind of squid), marine mussels, and a couple of small ammonites. All marine.
Yup they sure are marine. And guess what? They were found in a continental environment not in the ocean...

Read this quote you keep ignoring:

Originally Posted by Total Science
All of the marine fossils we find older than 80-180 m.y.a. are found in a continental environment i.e. on land. There is no such thing as an ocean fossil older than 180 m.y. old.

56. Originally Posted by Total Science
Saying Australia is not in the ocean is not a canard because that is precisely my point. Why do you think Australia is in the ocean?
i'm not saying that australia is in the ocean now - what i'm saying is that certain parts of australia, america, europe and just about any continent i can think of contains sedimentary structures that are demonstably from deep-ocean origin

57. Originally Posted by marnixR
Originally Posted by Total Science
Saying Australia is not in the ocean is not a canard because that is precisely my point. Why do you think Australia is in the ocean?
i'm not saying that australia is in the ocean now - what i'm saying is that certain parts of australia, america, europe and just about any continent i can think of contains sedimentary structures that are demonstably from deep-ocean origin
Wonderful (and debatable since planktonic is not benthonic) however totally irrelevant. Why are there no marine fossils found in the ocean older than 180 myo?

58. Originally Posted by Total Science
Why are there no marine fossils found in the ocean older than 180 myo?
read my lips : there ARE marine fossils in oceanic rocks on what currently are continents

e.g. Cyprus is all oceanic rock, hence why it was so rich in copper ores

when africa has fully collided with europe, what is now cyprus will just be a portion of oceanic crust embedded in continental rocks

59. Originally Posted by Total Science
Saying Australia is not in the ocean is not a canard because that is precisely my point. Why do you think Australia is in the ocean?

Can you read the dates on the following map? Yes or no? A simple yes or no answer is all that's required.

I give you a massive F for FAILURE.

60. Originally Posted by marnixR
Originally Posted by Total Science
Why are there no marine fossils found in the ocean older than 180 myo?
read my lips : there ARE marine fossils in oceanic rocks on what currently are continents
Which was precisely the case with the example I gave several posts back, relating to the sedimentary sequence south of Girvan in SW Scotland. What is that sequence again? Ah yes! Ophiolites. Just like Cyprus.

Regards
Ophiolite

61. "there are none so blind as those who can, but won't, see" -- Richard Feynman

+ what is that you feel the need to keep on showing the same map, mantra-wise, as if it proves anything at all ?

62. Originally Posted by marnixR
"there are none so blind as those who can, but won't, see" -- Richard Feynman

+ what is that you feel the need to keep on showing the same map, mantra-wise, as if it proves anything at all ?
There are none so dishonest with themselves as those who refuse to answer a simple yes or no question.

63. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by marnixR
Originally Posted by Total Science
Why are there no marine fossils found in the ocean older than 180 myo?
read my lips : there ARE marine fossils in oceanic rocks on what currently are continents
Which was precisely the case with the example I gave several posts back, relating to the sedimentary sequence south of Girvan in SW Scotland. What is that sequence again? Ah yes! Ophiolites. Just like Cyprus.

Regards
Ophiolite
Scotland and Cyprus are not part of the oceanic lithosphere...

They are what people commonly refer to as "land."

Do you know what land is?

64. Originally Posted by Total Science
Do you know what land is?
are you able to recognise oceanic crust when you see it ?
i somehow doubt it, with your insistence that rocks found on continents need to be of continental origin

as for any questions regarding your map : as i've told you before, it's an incomplete map - it only shows the spreading centres, not the subduction zones

but then again, that suits your preconceptions, doesn't it ?

65. Originally Posted by marnixR
Originally Posted by Total Science
Do you know what land is?
are you able to recognise oceanic crust when you see it ?
i somehow doubt it, with your insistence that rocks found on continents need to be of continental origin
You didn't answer the question. (1) Do you know what land is, yes or no?

Assuming you know what land is (I'm skeptical at this point), (2) do you know the difference between a continental environment and the oceanic lithosphere?

as for any questions regarding your map : as i've told you before, it's an incomplete map - it only shows the spreading centres, not the subduction zones

but then again, that suits your preconceptions, doesn't it ?
You didn't answer the question, however the map is a complete map of the oceanic lithosphere. The reason why there are no subduction zones pictured is because there is no such thing. Subduction is a myth.

66. (1) yes, and (2) yes

however, i somehow doubt whether you have what it takes to recognise oceanic crust on continents - then again, you've closed your mind to the possibility that oceanic crust can be found on continents, haven't you ?

so anyone claiming to do so must be talking cobblers, mustn't they ?

answer me this question : WHY do you deny the existence of oceanic crust on continents ? do you actually have the knowledge to recognise oceanic crust if you saw it ?

67. Originally Posted by marnixR
(1) yes, and (2) yes
If that's true why do you keep lying about the age of the oceanic lithospehere?

68. Originally Posted by marnixR
WHY do you deny the existence of oceanic crust on continents ?
There is a conceptual difference, which you've already acknowledged (after pulling some teeth), between the oceanic lithosphere and the continental crust.

Either you deny the distinction or you don't. So which is it?

69. Originally Posted by Total Science
Scotland and Cyprus are not part of the oceanic lithosphere...

They are what people commonly refer to as "land."

Do you know what land is?
Listen dumbass, cut the sarcasm and the snide commentary or you are history. Is that clear Bubba? You've been warned enough times. I'll be sending you a pm shortly in which I'll express my contempt for you in much more robust terms than are appropriate in public.

In the meantime, some oceanic lithosphere is welded onto the continental crust during the process of subduction. It's simple, it's documented, it's widespread.

Now since you can't behave yourself this thread is locked.

70. I go away for a couple days and everyone is fighting Nice human nature thread.

Ophiolite has gone a bit overboard once again in his response breaking some basic forum rules he himself is trying to uphold. I can however see how he got to this point after reading the many one line responses that were in the nature of "I know you are but what am I ?".

This thread can be unlocked at this point to allow the ranting to continue. Just keep in mind of the forum rules.

Total Science you need to learn to respond with answers that are not one line statements that more or less just tell people they are wrong without giving examples and proof as to why they are wrong. This forum is full of people who can't stand one line responses for good reason. If you take some serious time to really prove your case you'll find people will back you in proving it to others. This forum is not about showing up and saying I have all the answers and expect people not to prove you don't.

71. Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
Total Science you need to learn to respond with answers that are not one line statements that more or less just tell people they are wrong without giving examples and proof as to why they are wrong. This forum is full of people who can't stand one line responses for good reason.
Point taken.

If you take some serious time to really prove your case you'll find people will back you in proving it to others. This forum is not about showing up and saying I have all the answers and expect people not to prove you don't.
The irony is that I'm the only one who has provided scientific references and scientific data relevant to the topic in this thread.

So far I have seen no evidence showing that Scotland and Cyprus are part of the oceanic lithosphere in the map provided.

72. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
Total Science you need to learn to respond with answers that are not one line statements that more or less just tell people they are wrong without giving examples and proof as to why they are wrong. This forum is full of people who can't stand one line responses for good reason.
Point taken.

If you take some serious time to really prove your case you'll find people will back you in proving it to others. This forum is not about showing up and saying I have all the answers and expect people not to prove you don't.
The irony is that I'm the only one who has provided scientific references and scientific data relevant to the topic in this thread.

So far I have seen no evidence showing that Scotland and Cyprus are part of the oceanic lithosphere in the map provided.
I would give the same advice to everyone who debates their views on this forum, that advice is very simple. Provide enough evidence to prove you are right and they are wrong without going overboard. Be sure you also are willing to actually admit that you might just be wrong. It happens to the best of us. Most of the seasoned members here know better then to debate with one liners. It turns in to a viscous cycle of post after post that proves nor disproves anything at all. It's also often referred to as "Trolling".

73. The irony is that I'm the only one who has provided scientific references and scientific data in this thread.
This is absolute nonsense totalscience. Your "evidence" has been refuted countless times and your responses to these have been to just state them again with added incredulity for the counter evidence. Your lack of understanding of the subject matter and total ignorant disregard for the counter evidence has characterised ALL of your posts. This, coupled with your arrogance, is what pushed Ophiolite over the edge and made you a laughing stock. If you really believe all of this nonsense, then you have done a very poor job indeed of presenting your case. Learn some humility and try to objectively consider ALL the evidence and you might still learn something.

74. Maybe I am out of my depth here but

The amount of hydrogen contained in the Earth's mantle is beyond computation i.e. infinite.
This would mean an incredibly large mass of hydrogen in a relatively tiny space which would mean the hydrogen is under huge pressure surely this would almost make the earth into a star like body with this much hydrogen undergoing nucleur fusion.

75. Originally Posted by organic god
Maybe I am out of my depth here but

The amount of hydrogen contained in the Earth's mantle is beyond computation i.e. infinite.
This would mean an incredibly large mass of hydrogen in a relatively tiny space which would mean the hydrogen is under huge pressure surely this would almost make the earth into a star like body with this much hydrogen undergoing nucleur fusion.
As the sun expands, eventually the Earth will become a star.

And yes there is fusion going on right now.

76. Total Science

The sun will expand into a red giant in about 5 billion years, and MAY consume the Earth. However, the Earth will not become a star.

And no, there is no evidence of fusion inside the Earth. Your reference is related to currently discredited work on cold fusion, and is thoroughly out of date.

77. Originally Posted by skeptic
Total Science

The sun will expand into a red giant in about 5 billion years, and MAY consume the Earth. However, the Earth will not become a star.
If the Earth is consumed by the sun then what does it become?

And no, there is no evidence of fusion inside the Earth. Your reference is related to currently discredited work on cold fusion, and is thoroughly out of date.
Link please. If you want to convince me you're going to have to use logic, reason, and scientific references.

78. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by skeptic
Total Science

The sun will expand into a red giant in about 5 billion years, and MAY consume the Earth. However, the Earth will not become a star.
If if the Earth is consumed by the sun then what does it become?
Wasteland. All water will evaporate, everything organic will be incinerated. Maybe some of the crust will melt. The surface temperature of such a red giant star is about 5000 K.

79. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by skeptic
Total Science

The sun will expand into a red giant in about 5 billion years, and MAY consume the Earth. However, the Earth will not become a star.
If if the Earth is consumed by the sun then what does it become?
Wasteland. All water will evaporate, everything organic will be incinerated. Maybe some of the crust will melt. The surface temperature of such a red giant star is about 5000 K.
In other words the sun's gravity will make the Earth become part of a star.

80. In other words the sun's gravity will make the Earth become part of a star.
This doesn't make the earth a star just because it is consumed by the sun. otherwise you could say that each individual hydrogen atom is a star.clearly this is not the case.
I don't understand how you can argue for an infinite quantity of hydrogen confined in a finite space within the earths mantle.
Not only would this produce intense nucleur fusion.
But density = mass/volume
therefore we have an infinite density meaning that the earth should behave like a black hole

81. i too am definitely out of my depth and prefer to ask a simple question which after going thru the debates doesnt seem to answer the question of: if the core of the earth is iron (is it molten? if im not wrong it isnt and only the outer part is) and it gets spilled out, then would there be less liquid iron inside the earth (i.e. is it really going to be hollow?)? is there anyway to replenish this missing iron/rock/what ever u geologists call it?

82. To Total Science

The cold fusion business is pretty much a dead duck. Wiki has a simple description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

The Earth engulfed by the sun may or may not become part of the sun. If so, it becomes a non reactive part, since the Earth is largely made of non fusable materials. However, this is irrelevent. Your original statement was that the Earth would become a sun, and that is not correct.

Oceanwave
The core of the Earth appears to be iron. I am not sure if you can call it molten. The immense pressures at the centre of the Earth keep it solid, though probably somewhat plastic. However, it is so hot that, at our surface pressure, it would be very molten. I cannot see how the core will ever be released, or spilled out as you said, though. It is strongly trapped in place by the Earth's gravity. The force of gravity on the core is so massive that it would take something as potent as engulfment by the sun to change it.

83. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by skeptic
Total Science

The sun will expand into a red giant in about 5 billion years, and MAY consume the Earth. However, the Earth will not become a star.
If if the Earth is consumed by the sun then what does it become?
Wasteland. All water will evaporate, everything organic will be incinerated. Maybe some of the crust will melt. The surface temperature of such a red giant star is about 5000 K.
In other words the sun's gravity will make the Earth become part of a star.
Yeah, just like the hundreds or more comets and asteroids that plunge into the sun each year. The fusion in the sun only takes place in the core which is only a fraction of the entire volume. It takes millions of degrees to keep the fusion running. Here you can read what actually happens during the solar fusion process.

84. Originally Posted by skeptic
To Total Science

The cold fusion business is pretty much a dead duck. Wiki has a simple description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
Clearly peer-reviewed science and the United States Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center disagree with your flawed and primitve 20th century fundamentalist interpretation of Wikipedia Scripture.

Jones, S.E., et al., Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter, Nature, 339, Pages 737-740, Apr 1989

Hall, N., and Beard, J., Test-Tube Fusion Experiment Repeated, New Scientist, 1659, Apr 1989

Arata, Y., and Zhang, C.J., A New Energy Caused By "Spillover Deuterium", Proceedings of the Japanese Academy, Series B, 1994

Arata, Y., and Zhang, C.J., Development of Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Using Solid Pycnodeuterium as Nuclear Fuel, 10th International Congress on Cold Fusion, 2003

Jones, S.E., and Ellsworth, J.E., Geo-Fusion and Cold Nucleosynthesis, 10th International Congress on Cold Fusion, 2003

Department of Energy Review of Cold Fusion (2004)

Szpak, S., et al., Further Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D Lattice: Emission of Charged Particles, Naturwissenschaften, Volume 94, Number 6, 2007

85. Total Science

Cold fusion has its adherents. Most scientists have dropped it and over the last decade only a few die hards cling to it as a possibility. Of course, anything is possible, but the majority of specialists in the field of fusion energy regard it as crackpot pseudoscience.

86. Originally Posted by Total Science
... your flawed and primitve 20th century fundamentalist interpretation of Wikipedia Scripture.
wow - you really know how to make friends and influence people, do you ?

87. Originally Posted by skeptic
Total Science

Cold fusion has its adherents. Most scientists have dropped it and over the last decade only a few die hards cling to it as a possibility. Of course, anything is possible, but the majority of specialists in the field of fusion energy regard it as crackpot pseudoscience.
Religious fundamentalists think anything published in peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature and Naturwissenschaften is "crackpot pseudoscience."

88. Originally Posted by Total Science
Originally Posted by skeptic
Total Science

Cold fusion has its adherents. Most scientists have dropped it and over the last decade only a few die hards cling to it as a possibility. Of course, anything is possible, but the majority of specialists in the field of fusion energy regard it as crackpot pseudoscience.
Religious fundamentalists think anything published in peer-reviewd scientific journals like Nature and Naturwissenschaften is "crackpot pseudoscience."

89. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Please, sir, show us where your conclusive evidence of cold fusion is. Has it EVER been demonstrated?
I refer you to the peer-reviewed science published in Nature, New Scientist, and Naturwissenschaften you are deliberately ignoring posted above.

Jones, S.E., et al., Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter, Nature, 339, Pages 737-740, Apr 1989

Hall, N., and Beard, J., Test-Tube Fusion Experiment Repeated, New Scientist, 1659, Apr 1989

Arata, Y., and Zhang, C.J., A New Energy Caused By "Spillover Deuterium", Proceedings of the Japanese Academy, Series B, 1994

Arata, Y., and Zhang, C.J., Development of Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Using Solid Pycnodeuterium as Nuclear Fuel, 10th International Congress on Cold Fusion, 2003

Jones, S.E., and Ellsworth, J.E., Geo-Fusion and Cold Nucleosynthesis, 10th International Congress on Cold Fusion, 2003

Department of Energy Review of Cold Fusion (2004)

Szpak, S., et al., Further Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D Lattice: Emission of Charged Particles, Naturwissenschaften, Volume 94, Number 6, 2007

90. To total science.

As I said before. Cold fusion has its adherents. This is a small group of scientists who cling to extremely tenuous evidence of a cold fusion reaction. They continue their work as they can, and publish where they can. Not normally in reputable peer reviewed journals, but rather in such things as the proceedings of their own conferences.

Reality check. Cold fusion has been tested by those who a not True Believers on many occasions. These unbiased researchers have found nothing that cannot be explained by experimental error. Thus, there is no reason to believe cold fusion is a reality.

I have no problem with a few crackpot researchers continuing to carry out their work. Sometimes the strangest of research leads to valuable results. However, we should not go about preaching its reality, since the best data suggests most strongly that it is not.

91. Originally Posted by skeptic
a few crackpot researchers
That's the typical response from a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

92. Originally Posted by skeptic
To total science.

As I said before. Cold fusion has its adherents. This is a small group of scientists who cling to extremely tenuous evidence of a cold fusion reaction. They continue their work as they can, and publish where they can. Not normally in reputable peer reviewed journals, but rather in such things as the proceedings of their own conferences.

Reality check. Cold fusion has been tested by those who a not True Believers on many occasions. These unbiased researchers have found nothing that cannot be explained by experimental error. Thus, there is no reason to believe cold fusion is a reality.

I have no problem with a few crackpot researchers continuing to carry out their work. Sometimes the strangest of research leads to valuable results. However, we should not go about preaching its reality, since the best data suggests most strongly that it is not.
Crackpots and what seem to be frauds recently.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...fusion_claims/
http://www.physorg.com/news135611730.html

93. Dr Rocket

Good reference.
I suspect that the adherents to cold fusion by means of electrolysis of heavy water using Palladium electrodes are not outright frauds - just seriously deluded. The problem is that the phenomena they are reporting is so minimal that it falls well within experimental error. It is really easy for someone who really want to see extra neutrons or a little extra warmth to think they have picked it up, when all they see is within normal variation of existing parameters.

Certainly there are many researchers who have tried their damnedest to repeat the results and could not. At the very best, if there is something genuine happening, it is so trivial as to have no practical value.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement