Real Science Radio on the Origin of Trans-Neptunian Objects

[One Ugly Christian]

One that dc quoted previously: PREDICTION 1: Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled saltwater.72 (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first published in 1980. Supercritical saltwater appears to be about 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on earth.)73

Darn it, have to eat my words already; The article Brown refers to is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1998JB900074/abstract

It says, "Our results imply that of the order of 10% volume of free aqueous fluids in the Tibetan middle crust produces the observed bright spot reflections. The presence of relatively large quantities of free aqueous fluids, presumably mostly saline supercritical H2O, does not preclude the presence of melt but does constrain the maximum temperature at the bright spots to the wet granite solidus (about 650°C) and thus the maximum surface heat flow to ≤110 mW m−2. The observed bright spots can alternatively be explained as a result of transient flow of aqueous fluids through a lower temperature and lower heat flow southern Tibetan crust."

So although it says there is a "relatively large [quantity] of free aqueous liquid" and 10% by volume it disagrees with links provided by dc and barbarian. And of course it also says it could be explained by transient flow. Obviously, this adds weight to Brown's claim but it is almost 35 years old research.

 

[gcthomas]

Ugly,

That is the same paper I was referring to. It does, as you see, talk about rock with a small percentage of water soaked into it, rather than pools of water.

There can be no pools because liquids cannot transmit one of the two main types of earthquake waves, allowing the P waves to pass but reflecting the S waves. The only parts of the Earth that have been observed to block S waves is the outer core and the oceans.

So, there are no large pools of water, even if the rocks are wet.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

Ugly,

That is the same paper I was referring to. It does, as you see, talk about rock with a small percentage of water soaked into it, rather than pools of water.

There can be no pools because liquids cannot transmit one of the two main types of earthquake waves, allowing the P waves to pass but reflecting the S waves. The only parts of the Earth that have been observed to block S waves is the outer core and the oceans.

So, there are no large pools of water, even if the rocks are wet.

Doesn't the statement, "large quantities of free aqueous fluids, presumably mostly saline supercritical H2O" mean free from rocks and indicate the possibility of pools? I'm not a scientist so perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly. Also, can S wave, with current technology anyway, detect small pools (relatively "small" that is)?

 

[Stripe]

One that dc quoted previously: PREDICTION 1: Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled saltwater.72 (Recent discoveries support this prediction, first published in 1980. Supercritical saltwater appears to be about 10 miles below the Tibetan Plateau, which is bounded on the south by the largest mountain range on earth.)73

However, I can not find the references Brown is referring to from 1980. I know I've read it a long time ago but the links gc and barbarian give seem to be based on the same research/findings but more up to date. I will continue to research this but, again, have to go with the evolutionist on this one [as much as it pains me---not because I have to agree with them but because I've stated that Brown's prediction on this was accurate in numerous emails and on other forums---posts which I'll never be able to find and correct.]

The 1980 reference is the prediction. Long before there was any means of knowing, Dr Brown predicted brine beneath mountains.

Even today, our ability to determine what is at such depths is extremely limited. What evidence we do have shows that the prediction is reasonable -- i.e, the paper I linked to.

 

[gcthomas]

Doesn't the statement, "large quantities of free aqueous fluids, presumably mostly saline supercritical H2O" mean free from rocks and indicate the possibility of pools? I'm not a scientist so perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly.

'Free' means chemically free, as in the water molecules are not bound onto the crystal structure, but is instead squeezed in between the crystal gains.

 

[Stripe]

That is the same paper I was referring to.

No, it wasn't.

You mentioned this paper:

Here is another paper from the same journal:

Crustal flow pattern beneath the Tibetan Plateau constrained by regional Lg-wave Q tomography
Lian-Feng Zhao et al
Earth and Planetary Science Letters

Found here:
http://es.ucsc.edu/~xie/papers/ZHAO_XIE_HE_TIAN_YAO_EPSL_2013_Lg-Q_in_Tibet.pdf

While OUC provided this paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...4/asset/jgrb11712.pdf?v=1&t=i0vakmjk&eef26543

Add this to you saying the ringwoodite issue was the same as what I provided shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

There can be no pools because liquids cannot transmit one of the two main types of earthquake waves, allowing the P waves to pass but reflecting the S waves. The only parts of the Earth that have been observed to block S waves is the outer core and the oceans. So, there are no large pools of water, even if the rocks are wet.

Unfortunately for your little idea, the paper OUC provided demonstrates that there is indeed a lot of liquid down there all in one place. The debate is over what sort of liquid it is.

Perhaps when you've stopped being determined that everything a creationist says must be mocked, you might be willing to rationally address the facts.

 

[Stripe]

Darn it, have to eat my words already; The article Brown refers to is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1998JB900074/abstract

Whoa. Cool article. Where did you find Dr Brown mentioning that one?

And, by the way, it looks like it was submitted in 1999, not 35 years ago.

There were no techniques around 35 years ago that could have helped shed light on this issue.

 

[gcthomas]

Oh, stripy,

The whole discussion we had was over Walt's reference paper. I mentioned another paper as an aside. I have not been discussing ringwoodite with you, I responded to Ugly' raising of that paper.

My whole series of comments rebutting your and Walt's claims from that paper were based on direct quotes from that same paper.

It seems that, in addition to you not reading the paper you didn't read my paraphrasing of it. Ugly's quotes are exactly the ones I used. Don't you remember me writing about the rock under Tibet? About the small percentage of water within the rock there?

Creationists hate reading their alleged evidence. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

There can be no pools because liquids cannot transmit one of the two main types of earthquake waves, allowing the P waves to pass but reflecting the S waves. The only parts of the Earth that have been observed to block S waves is the outer core and the oceans.

So, there are no large pools of water, even if the rocks are wet.

Never thought of that. We'd be immediately able to pick out the water in the crust, because there would be S wave "shadows" wherever they existed.

Wonder why Walt never figured that out. Actually, no I don't wonder.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

Whoa. Cool article. Where did you find Dr Brown mentioning that one?

And, by the way, it looks like it was submitted in 1999, not 35 years ago.

There were no techniques around 35 years ago that could have helped shed light on this issue.

AGGGG, I guess I could have actually READ to see it was 1999 (I was actually looking at the one Brown referenced from 1980 (and a whole slue of related articles) but the one I linked has a lot more information).

gc seems to know what he's talking about on this and even this article, as far as my limited knowledge can decipher, seems to be saying that the water present leached out of the rocks over time. It also doesn't reference anything like "vast pools" though it does say the water is saline. This "leaching" or "sweating" is also the same process which scientists speculate has taken place in the rignwoodite rock which also speculatively produces pockets of water. Either way, the research doesn't appear to support the finding of Brown's pools--though he could still very well be proven right in the future.

 

[Stripe]

AGGGG, I guess I could have actually READ to see it was 1999 (I was actually looking at the one Brown referenced from 1980 (and a whole slue of related articles) but the one I linked has a lot more information).

As I say, I don't think there was a reference to a paper written in 1980, there was only the prediction 35 years ago.

gc seems to know what he's talking about.

He hasn't shown anything of the sort. He can't even properly identify the difference between what he posts and we post.

As far as my limited knowledge can decipher, seems to be saying that the water present leached out of the rocks over time.

Where does it say that?