Massive water reservoir discovered towards Earth's core

Thread titled inaccurately.
This is just a theory. It hasn't been 'discovered', or proven.

a reply to: Barcs

I was wondering how long it would take for the creationist flood myth guys to come out of the woodwork.

Well it's just my two cents Barcs. I'm sorry it pains you but I figured, why let you
wonder for no reason. And it was shabby woodwork any way.

I posted this in a different thread, but here goes:
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Are we all aware that the article isn't suggesting that there is an actual ocean inside the earth?

It is not a literal reservoir one would think of like a lake or basin, or a hollow section of inner Earth, Jules Verne style. But rather a layer of extremely high temperature, highly pressurized rock or mineral called ringwoodite, that contains hydroxide ions. But this isn't water in a liquid, solid or gas form. Simply, as H2O.

I cannot fathom (no pun intended) how this "water" would even be released to the surface, and transformed(?) to liquid water, without some great cataclysmic event.
What would this transformation process be called?

Out of curiosity, how would biblical flooding occur? The entirety of all ringwoodite escapes from a gash in the Earth 400 miles deep, the Hydrogen and Oxygen then unbind from the mineral, then transform to liquid water, washes over the land, floods for a month or so, and then presumably soaks back into the Earth as to not leave a gaping pocket underground, and re-bonds with the ringwoodite, while, up on the surface, the gash which released it all to begin with manages to patch itself up?

Just for a little perspective:
Deepest man-made hole I could find is just over 7 miles deep.
source: en.wikipedia.org...
Ringwoodite is located approximately 325 - 410 miles deep.
With that, I don't think we need worry about exploiting and raping the resource with drilling or fracking, as it is located 50x deeper than we have ever been able to drill.

This is my understanding, but any clarifications would be greatly appreciated. (especially in regards to my sources, or math conversions of feet>miles and km>miles.)

Im not here to insult, demean, or trivialize anyone's beliefs.
Just looking to better understand the article, and the logic of some posts.

a reply to: Observationalist

Thanks.

Interesting updated simulation . . .

www.youtube.com...

Nice that he has considerable credentials.

I realize that NO AMOUNT OF FACTS or evidence will convince folks addicted to their own rebellions, pride, fierce independence from God, etc.

Lots of things will be revealed in the future.

Between now and then, tons of deception prepared for millenia will appear to reign supreme.

There are not a lot of choices for values or truth . . . in this era where truth itself as a construct, has been trashed as nonexistent.

Interesting times, for sure.
.

Not seen it mentioned in the thread but we do have another likely suspect in the list of possible water sources on Earth: the Sun.
The solar wind is a good likely candidate because it is rich in Hydrogen Ions.
These Ions react with Oxygen in the dust and debris of the solar system and creates H2o.

If you imagine the time scales involved, varying energy levels of the sun and the likelihood of much higher "dust" concentrations in our locale historically (think planetary collisions) there is at least a mathematically valid source of the Hydrogen and Oxygen required.

No need for half baked man made religious explanations when you have the measurable magnificence of energy interactions that somehow shape us.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Between now and then, tons of deception prepared for millenia will appear to reign supreme.

Just a note, that you seem to have a gift for wording that
which, I often have trouble aticulating. Not to mention in
a way that is easily understood.

a reply to: GoodDocGonzo

Out of curiosity, how would biblical flooding occur? The entirety of all ringwoodite escapes from a gash in the Earth 400 miles deep, the Hydrogen and Oxygen then unbind from the mineral, then transform to liquid water, washes over the land, floods for a month or so, and then presumably soaks back into the Earth as to not leave a gaping pocket underground, and re-bonds with the ringwoodite, while, up on the surface, the gash which released it all to begin with manages to patch itself up?

The Mid Atlantic Ridge has been described as a gash in the earth. If you ever been to the beach and dug a hole in the sand you would see it only takes one wave to fill that hole, your left with a small indentation where the whole once was. The rocks were much younger back then and were perhaps easily liquified much like sand.

That's from my observations, but take a look at the Hydroplate Theory I posted above for a more scientific approach.

Or watch this posted from BO XIAN

Hah, half your links take text out of context.

You're laughable at best. Cute like the adorable kitten in your avatar.

You've already made up your greatly skewed mind. No point in arguing.

a reply to: Grimpachi

a reply to: Biigs

isnt a geysir sort of a water volcano?
just pondering...

Best of days to all of you!
Nivek555

a reply to: raymundoko

For arguments sake even if half are out of context (they aren't) that still leaves the other half describing a flat earth. I do not even know why you are trying to argue it because bible historian consensus admit the bible describes a flat earth.

You seem to have been confused about that from the git go. You had posted a link talking about how people in medieval times pretty much accepted the earth was round. It is fine that the people knew better, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible was wrong.

You are correct in not wanting to argue that is a smart move on your part because there isn't anything to argue unless you have re-written the bible yourself omitting the references to flat Earth. I don't think you have though because I think that is supposed to be some kind of sin. Seems only kings have had that privilege.

Link me a bible historian who agrees the earth was flat...you linked blogs. And the flat earth myth link applies because if the bible taught the earth was flat everyone would have thought that. I only read half your links because they all had scriptures out of context (yes they did). The tree, the kingdoms if the earth, all visions with explanations only a few versus later. You've never read the bible and it's glaringly obvious.

Only in modern times have people started arguing the bible taught the earth was flat.

The reason I won't argue about it is because of the fact you've never read the bible. It would be like a highschool teacher arguing with a first grader.

The Firmament.

a reply to: raymundoko

The fault is yours then. First you say you only read half the links then you ask which historians assert the bible describes a flat earth.

Willful ignorance much?

Don't ask me for links if you aren't going to read them.

I will give you a name though.

German historian Reinhard Krueger has identified about 100 medieval writings dealing with Earth's shape. Five seem to assert flatness, and two are ambiguous. The rest take the globe for granted.

Now show me the versus describing a globe. Don't be ambiguous with asserting a circle is a globe as I have already posted on that and there are several translations of instead of circle it says disc.

So stop embarrassing yourself. If you don't want to debate or argue as you put it that's fine but if you insist on asserting your correct then the saying goes put up or shut !@. I have given you a wealth of information on the subject yet you have only UH uhh then attacked with ad hominem.

I will also bring this to your attention one more time.

In Hebrew the word translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 it is chuwg, this means "circle" not "sphere." Strong's Concordance circle describe a circle.
In 40:22. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament circle the earth is conceived as a disc.
In the Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: "draw round, make a circle." If a sphere were meant, the Hebrew word "duwr" would have been used.

biblehub.com...

International Standard Version
He's the one who sits above the disk of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He's the one who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in,biblehub.com...

I get the feeling you will simply overlook anything as direct as that.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If some people in medieval times felt the earth was flat, then it wasn't due to poor scientific knowledge of the time, but rather due to the ignorance of those specific people.

A spherical earth was known to science well before medieval times; the ancient Greeks understood the true shape of the Earth. Much of the world's scientific understanding was adopted from the ancient Greeks, and thus Roman and Islamic scientific dogma included a spherical earth.

I don't doubt that through ignorance of the scientific understanding that came before them, some medieval people may have believed the Earth to be flat, but that's beside the point.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I think there is a misunderstanding.

I never claimed that the people of medieval times believed the earth was flat what I said was the bible claimed the earth was flat.

There have been people all throughout history who didn't take religions at face value. I do give humanity more credit than that. My comments were in reference to what "sacred texts" said on the matter.

The sad part is you dont see your bad logic.

Most people in medieval times were very religious...including scientists...none of them thought the earth was flat. If the bible taught the earth was flat it would have been a common belief.


a reply to: Grimpachi

If the first half of the links you give are texts taken out of context why would I keep reading them?

And the historian you mentioned proves that nobody ever really thought the earth was flat...you are so far behind on this. I promise you I'm not the one being embarrassed here. Your ignorance speaks volumes.

And again you are using metaphors to try and prove a point. If I say my arms the size of a cedar does it mean my arm is literally the size of a tree. The text is meant to make a point and every biblical scholar knows that.

a reply to: Grimpachi

a reply to: raymundoko

The sad part is you dont see your bad logic.

Most people in medieval times were very religious...including scientists...none of them thought the earth was flat. If the bible taught the earth was flat it would have been a common belief.

No the sad part is I had just finished explaining that I give the people medieval times more credit than to believe flat earth nonsense from bronze age goat herders regardless if their "sacred texts" say otherwise. However, you didn't seem to understand that.

If the first half of the links you give are texts taken out of context why would I keep reading them?

So you say. Yet offer nothing to refute them.

And the historian you mentioned proves that nobody ever really thought the earth was flat...you are so far behind on this. I promise you I'm not the one being embarrassed here. Your ignorance speaks volumes.

No he said that people of medieval times didn't believe the goat herders who wrote the "sacred texts" from the bronze age and did believe that the earth was flat.

Again I will repeat myself. I am not saying the people from medieval believed what was written in your sacred texts. So you can leave the people of that era out of it. This is about what the bronze age goat herders believed and wrote in your "sacred texts".

And again you are using metaphors to try and prove a point. If I say my arms the size of a cedar does it mean my arm is literally the size of a tree. The text is meant to make a point and every biblical scholar knows that.

There we have it. When %$#^ doesn't line up with reality in your "sacred texts" it is a metaphor. Yet when certain types hear that there is water in the ground they jump up and down yelling see our "sacred texts" said so and this proves...yada yada. When it speaks of a flat earth you say oh nooo..that is a metaphor and must be interpreted.

if you guys really believe in noahs flood and want scientific evidence to back you up go pick up a book on geology and stop making fools of yourself with ridiculous claims and theories that have absolutely no basis in reality

if you guys really believe in noahs flood and want scientific evidence to back you up go pick up a book on geology and stop making fools of yourself with ridiculous claims and theories that have absolutely no basis in reality