It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And Up from the Deep Came a Bubbling...

page: 2
46
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

pauljs75
I'd say the Earth's core is hot, not because of tidal forces with the moon (although it contributes some), but a much much bigger and ongoing version of the Oklo natural reactor. Water makes a good moderator to help keep things going. It's why helium and radioactive gases seep out in some places. (And at times more than what slow decay should account for.) Convection currents in the molten materials containing metals keep the magnetic field going. Our planet has a pretty live core compared to other terrestrial types in the system.

Mainstream science still doesn't say the Earth's core is a fission reactor, but I don't consider that idea anywhere near as far out as the hollow Earth or those oddball "intelligent design" theories. Evidence of water being that deep is something that would help support it.
emphasis mine

Except that there is not nearly enough radioactive materials or residual heat:


Radioactive decay can by no means provide the heat energy required for convection. ... These concentrations are extremely small, and of the order of 80 ppb. In the Moon, the concentration of radioactive elements is more than three times greater. Following that reasoning radioactive decay causes mantle convection, and the Moon should therefore have a vigorously convecting mantle instead of a non-convecting mantle, as we observe.

Finally, primordial heat can not be the energy source either. ... With the present rate of heat loss, that amount can only last for about 2 billion years. This is however a very conservative estimate, ... If the heat energy requirements for convection are between one or two orders of magnitude greater, this primordial energy can only last from 200 to 20 million years!


Nor is the mantle molten or anything resembling a liquid:


Materials with viscosities of the order of 10^20 poises and higher, can only be treated as a solid


At the pressures that exist within the earth, heat cannot be the driving force:


Heat, by definition, is the kinetic energy of atomic or molecular translation, and/or rotation, and/or vibration. In gases and liquids heat is the kinetic energy of randomly and more or less free moving atoms and molecules.In solids the electromagnetic forces hold the entire assembly of atoms and molecules to a definite size and shape, and they only vibrate about fixed locations, instead of moving randomly as with a gas or liquid. If, in high pressure states, the movement of atoms and molecules is limited, the heat energy content will be low and heat transport slower. Thus temperature and heating capacity are low and the internal energy is in the form of electronic-chemical energy, i.e., free electron movement and/or compression of electron shells within the atoms of the solid. It is only when the electro-chemically stored energy is transformed into kinetic energy of atoms (via vibration, and/or rotation, and/or translation) that the heat content increases. Only then, will a solid’s internal energy exist as kinetic energy of its atoms and heat and internal energy can be truly considered equivalent. Conditions inside Earth where its internal energy can exist and be released as kinetic energy of its atoms, are only possible at, or very near to its surface, i.e. at lower pressures.
emphasis mine

All above external are quotes from the paper I previously linked.




posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Phage posted on the other thread that was closed on this subject that the amount of water probably wouldn't be enough to flood the earth, something to think about though is what if all the polar ice was melted also. that water if execrated that far into the earth would most likely be very warm/hot and could melt all of the polar ice. also what would happen to the earths crust if the interior of the earth lost that much mass/ structure in such a short period of time. conversely what would happen if trillions of gallons of water were "magically" dropped on the earth all at once, maybe the mantle is comprised of a super absorbent layer that eventually sucked up all that water and then expanded the earth to become a larger size thus expanding Pangea in 40 days rather than a few billion years. man that sounds like a crazy creationist theory lol.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bigcountry08
 


The Flood is more than possible, its extremely plausible. To dismiss it would be the epitome of ignorance and arrogance. I don't care how many pseudoscientific claims you make to the contrary.

Weird how the wisdom in the Bible is not only accurate, but apparently still ahead of its time.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
so thats where all the water went that once filled the Grand Canyon and alike, it adds to the expanding earth theory imo.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Now lets take this information and apply it to the realworld...

This graph shows a cave filled with water near a subduction zone. If this is relevant to the subduction zone by Japan, then the melt down at fukushima will melt down into one of these water caves staying cooled, but producing contaminated water for a very long time....

that is a very bad situation...



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   

hxc408


Weird how the wisdom in the Bible is not only accurate, but apparently still ahead of its time.


what's even weirder is that that wisdom came from earlier wisdom which talks about floods (actually tsunamis caused by a breakup of the Antarctic ice sheet around 12K yrs ago) wiping out the Earth and people being instructed to build a survival craft with the dna of certain animals, other animals would've done just fine without the help. And it's funny how the earlier incarnation of the planet Earth (prior to being impacted creating the Pacific basin) was known as "a watery giant".

and as a side not: if the mantle is water logged wouldn't that water be under extreme pressure not to mention heat? how is it kept in stasis? I thought you couldn't compress water without something dramatic happening? point is once it somehow got to the surface it would turn to steam, then rain, then flow back into the ground....



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

the2ofusr1
reply to post by masqua
 


There is another story around from a month or so ago that researchers found pockets of water deep under the crust of the earth that was fresh water . In the piece that may be from the same source you have they stated that there was more fresh water down there them what we have on the surface .Kind of reminds me of the Genesis flood story of the fountains of the great deep being opened .The diamonds in this story might explain the Kimberlite pipes where diamonds are found .I can think of the one in Africa and the one we have up in the arctic ...interesting story eh

edit ..it would mean that diamonds are not created they way we were told .I think that what we call fossil fuels (oil) is not what they had told us either .
edit on 12-3-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)


I think it may have happened 11,000 years ago. The only way that water could be squeezed out back to the surface would be if the core and mantle of the Earth expanded due to heating, and this could happen through interaction with the magnetic field or a blast of subatomic particles from a nearby supernova. Which goes back to the nuclear event 11,000 years ago that affected North America and caused extinction of wildlife and bubbles inside pebbles of chert (a transparent glassy mineral) due to high-energy particles.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 

The expanding earth theory sounds possible to me in that the streams of different type particles entering the earth by way of the magnetic poles combine inside the earth to make matter .The inside pressure caused by the new matter heats up and forms other elements and works it's way to the surface to release some of the pressure .That is the way I think about it .Probably all wet on that but what ever .



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

chiefsmom
To me, it makes the theory of the monster flood a little more possible.
Which is very frightening.



I was thinking the exact same thing while reading the article.

Frightening may even be an understatement. lol

This interesting thing about this is they it may lend more credence to the hollow-earth theory too.

Keep my eye on this one.
edit on 14-3-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


You're actually very close to what is presented in the following paper:


Traditionally coal, oil and gas, are considered to be biogenic in their origin. However it is acknowledged that the processes by which fossil fuels evidently formed are not totally understood.

...

* Trace elements: Nickel and vanadium (Ni, V) found in all oils as well as trace-elements such as Zn, Pb, Cu, Cd, Cr, Co, As, Sb, Te, Hg, Au, Ag cannot be of organic origin and are typical of mantle rocks, like dunite/peridotite and serpentinites.

* Carbonaceous chondrites: Carbonaceous chondrites, thought to be a type of meteorites that never melted or even heated above 50 °C, are mostly small, black, friable, very low density and high porosity rocks. Visually they are almost indistinguishable from kerogen or coal. They contain amino acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a class of very stable hydrocarbon compounds with multiple benzene rings, typical of asphalts, fuels, oils, and greases.

...

* Depth of oil and gas discoveries: Almost all oil giants are found between 1 and 2 km; shallower than the ~3 km of the gas giants. If the force is from above and given the greater mobility of gas, the order should be opposite. Oil should be found at greater depths and gas closer to the surface. The greater depth gas is found is a consequence of higher temperatures at depths where microcracks-resonant cavities and electrons radiating at thermal frequencies coexist.

...

* Lack of biodegradation: Despite all expectations, oil found in Barents Sea in a depth as shallow as ~1000 m was not biodegraded. Since biodegradation, the process by which organic matter is broken down, aerobically or anaerobically, by micro-organisms is not observed in the Barents Sea, the great gas reserves in the area cannot be attributed to the action of methanogenic bacteria. Therefore, we can with good reason argue that the generating mechanism for oil and gas is common, and biodegradation does not play any major role in their formation processes.


There are quite a few more problems with biogenic hydrocarbon production; the above excerpts are but a few. As to exactly how this Excess Mass is generated, see the following paragraph:


Earth’s inner core is considered as an equilibrium high-tension/high-frequency location, wherein energy−unpaired standing waves transform into paired standing waves−matter, so that the conservation principle is not violated, and form new elements, i.e., Excess Mass. Earth’s outer core, being ‘looser’ space than that of the inner core, in correspondence to the electron cloud of an atom, has the characteristics of a plasma state. The order which elements form depends on their nuclear binding energy. Hydrogen with the lowest nuclear binding energy of ~1.15 MeV per nucleon should be the first element to form, and iron, with its ~8.8 MeV, the last and most stable. Thus, the absence of Fe-rich rocks and oceanic crust older than about 200 m.y. finds its physical explanation. The nuclear binding energy of U238 is ∼7.7 MeV, about the same as that of C12, implying that uranium from the fission sequence to the right of the Fe peak, and carbon, from the fusion sequence to the left of iron, started to form about the same time in the Earth’s evolution from low to high energies/frequencies.
emphasis mine

So, since the main force is coming from within the earth, the direction of energy flow rof hydrocarbon production is from the bottom up, rather than from the top down:



Then what we have is a hydrocarbon sandwich that has the following characteristics:



AAPG and AAPG European Region Energy Conference and Exhibition “CHALLENGE OUR MYTHS” 18-21 November 2007, Megaron Athens International Conference Centre, Athens, Greece

TASSOS, STAVROS, Institute of Geodynamics, National Observatory of Athens, Athens, Greece; and SEAN PHILLIPS, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

HYDROCARBONS IN THE CONTEXT OF A SOLID, QUANTIFIED, GROWING AND RADIATING EARTH.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Thanks for that . I see I have some studying to do .I don't quite buy into the iron core theory as well .I keep imagining some sort of a ball of very hot plasma ...peace



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Agartha's oceans anyone? ;D



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

bigcountry08
Phage posted on the other thread that was closed on this subject that the amount of water probably wouldn't be enough to flood the earth, something to think about though is what if all the polar ice was melted also. that water if execrated that far into the earth would most likely be very warm/hot and could melt all of the polar ice. also what would happen to the earths crust if the interior of the earth lost that much mass/ structure in such a short period of time. conversely what would happen if trillions of gallons of water were "magically" dropped on the earth all at once, maybe the mantle is comprised of a super absorbent layer that eventually sucked up all that water and then expanded the earth to become a larger size thus expanding Pangea in 40 days rather than a few billion years. man that sounds like a crazy creationist theory lol.


This paper proves there is a super-absorbent layer. The evidence from this paper is that the water can percolate between the individual crystals of rock, then migrate down into the mantle due to plate tectonics. It's all the clay and sediment in the sea-bed that slowly moves towards the mantle. Initially it contains 15% water, but that gradually gets squeezed out as the tectonic plates shift, and that's where the water from all those hydrothermal vents is coming from. So at any time, there's an volume of water equivalent to the Arctic ocean in just that one area.

i.livescience.com...

newscenter.berkeley.edu...

The "fountains of the deep" in the bible must refer to these hydrothermal vents. If the mantle heated up, that would seal up all the fault lines, expunge all the water before cutting the flow of water to the hydrothermal vents.

There is also thermal flow from the core of the earth to the surface:

www.nature.com...

earthchangesmedia.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
You know, we don't know a lot you know.

Very interesting find. I am fascinate by the relationship the holy books have with reality.

I wonder how much more is true?



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


That people "guess" that water was part of formation of the daimond, does not mean there are pockets of water at that depth ...

However, it has been known for quite some time, that water does come from the inside of the earth ... but not in the form of water, but in the form of gases, that collect in our atmosphere and fall as rain. These gases also form our atmosphere, as well as oxygen and all other gases.

At that depth, preassure and heat, it is highly unlikely it would remain water.

Hydrogen and Oxygen, being the richest gas particles within our earth ... they most likely form the water binding, when they collect in our atmosphere, at cooler temperatures.


edit on 16/3/2014 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Suddenly the Hollow Earth theory seems oddly possible...



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

bjarneorn


That people "guess" that water was part of formation of the daimond, does not mean there are pockets of water at that depth ...


Which is why this is in the link provided in the OP of this thread:


If the sample is representative of that part of the deep Earth, the amount of water there could be "about the same as the mass of all the world’s oceans combined," wrote Hans Keppler, a geophysicist at the University of Bayreuth in Germany, in an analysis article.


The key words are highlighted. No-one, even Hans Keppler, is saying that there definitely is. We'd have to verify the speculation of how much water exists that far down into the mantle by other means.




posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

masqua
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


My thoughts exactly... the old biblical notion of opening the 'fountains of the deep' suddenly makes more sense, doesn't it? It also might be another explanation for the disappearance of some land bridges.

ETA: I see I'm not the only one who thought of that right away.

edit on 12/3/14 by masqua because: (no reason given)


It makes perfect sense that the land bridges melted at the end of the last ice age.
Places like parts of Europe and the Americas were a mile under ice at this time ......... the ice melted, the land rose, the land bridges flooded.



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Am I seriously supposed to believe liquid water is present 600 KM below the earths surface?



I have to be missing something here, is the humidity down there preventing the water from evaporating and escaping?



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnTheSmith
 


You're not asked to believe anything. What's being asked is to look at the supporting evidence in the OP and what other members have contributed and make your own decision on what it all suggests.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join