Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RocksEverywhere

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22]
631
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 19, 2016, 02:21:38 PM »
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?

632
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do FE'rs explain meteors?
« on: September 19, 2016, 12:25:46 PM »
It's kinda hard to put everyone on the moon though.

633
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 19, 2016, 12:21:04 PM »
I see a lot of people saying that the government "hides the truth" as they control education; the government (I actually don't know if it's controlled by the government over here) has nothing to say about the education at universities though. The beauty of the system is that when you hear something in a lecture that you think is weird, you can look up how it was determined and even try to disprove it if you wish. That's also one of the foundations of science; proof has to be reproducible, and research that makes it to a journal has been peer reviewed. The scientific community is one on which censor and lying has no hold. It's too hard to get a lie in there and there's too much to gain by scientists who realize it and can uncover it.

If you choose to not believe me, then there is nothing I can do for you.

634
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 19, 2016, 10:51:31 AM »
Hey everyone,
I aim to educate people but actively trying to destroy beliefs goes against my morals.

What does that mean exactly?
It means I'm not here to argue with flat earth believers for the sake of trying to destroy their beliefs. People can believe whatever they want (as long as it doesn't harm me). Some people here appear to seek to destroy the entire flat earth movement. I'm not one of them.

635
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 19, 2016, 10:24:15 AM »
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?

The government actually covered most of my tuition, which is pretty neat (but that's not because of lying or anything, just that my government actually cares about its students). Now my debt isn't that massive. Most researchers actually have mediocre pay, it's in oil and mining where the money is. Going into research is basically saying that you don't care for money. We actually get taught pretty early on to think critical, do not believe everything you're told because we're at the edge of knowledge and what is commonly accepted now may be debunked in the future. Keep an open mind. For example, in and before the 60s, people laughed at the idea of plate tectonics and subduction. Now it's commonly accepted. Science moves along at an amazing pace.

I wish I could lie about money; I'd lie about lying and cash in anyway.

your goverment (made up of narcissist and former lawyers) doesnt care about you if you think they do you are more asleep then i thought.... you are stuck in a system of enslavement WAKE UP......

Oh they do care about me. Knowledge is one of the main exports of my country, they invest a lot of money in education just because of that.

636
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ICE WALL
« on: September 19, 2016, 09:43:20 AM »


Top notch stuff here

637
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Upward Acceleration of the Earth
« on: September 19, 2016, 09:26:54 AM »
One of the main issues with the upward acceleration is that it does not explain the geoid; differences of gravity over the surface of the earth. If the moon would not exist, the surface of the ocean would be pretty bumpy on the large scale. Take a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

638
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 19, 2016, 02:23:17 AM »
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?

The government actually covered most of my tuition, which is pretty neat (but that's not because of lying or anything, just that my government actually cares about its students). Now my debt isn't that massive. Most researchers actually have mediocre pay, it's in oil and mining where the money is. Going into research is basically saying that you don't care for money. We actually get taught pretty early on to think critical, do not believe everything you're told because we're at the edge of knowledge and what is commonly accepted now may be debunked in the future. Keep an open mind. For example, in and before the 60s, people laughed at the idea of plate tectonics and subduction. Now it's commonly accepted. Science moves along at an amazing pace.

I wish I could lie about money; I'd lie about lying and cash in anyway.

Here's the article I read :

http://feedingjimmy.com/fracking-cause-earthquakes-windmills/
I'm NOT saying I buy into this, just thought it was interesting.
Thanks for your input..

Well that's definitely an interesting read, but I have my doubts. First of all, the graph at the bottom of earthquakes vs windmill power is not even a proper correlation, let alone that they're actually related. The earthquakes go up drastically before the wind energy does and you'd expect it the other way round.

It was actually kind of difficult to find some proper tectonic context for these earthquakes, but it looks like they're reactivating an old strike-slip fault. This paper http://profile.usgs.gov/myscience/upload_folder/ci2013May3015351271984Keranen%20etal%20Geology%202013.pdf is also a pretty good read on why it is actually related to waste injection. Before I read it, I figured another option was that there are some intraplate stresses and the injection of the waste weakened/reactivated this old fault zole, triggering earthquakes.

How does granite come to the surface if it can only form in the mantle?

Granite actually forms in the lower crust, and can migrate up. If it comes out of a volcano or settles just under the surface it turns into the finer grained rhyolite, if it settles deeper it becomes granite. It can be exposed at the surface thanks to forces like uplift/mountain building, followed by erosion. Basically, mountain chains have a "root" in the mantle. Think of it as an ice cube. You see a few kms of elevation above the surface, but it goes way down into the mantle too. If you remove the top part due to erosion, and it buoys up (isostasy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy ), slowly revealing rocks from deeper and deeper.

639
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 18, 2016, 01:35:46 PM »
Yes, I have a geological question. I have recently read about a theory that the rise in count of wind turbines here in Oklahoma could possibly be the reason for the rise in earthquakes. Some will say fracking is the cause, and others say salt water injection sites (wells). But fracking is practically nationwide, and we don't see the frequency of earthquakes rise in states like Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc.
For the record, I worked on a frac crew for 2 years, so I know what goes on. I think the general public has been misled, as it's been dragged into the political arena..
Anyway, wind turbines. What do you think?
I assume you mean the weight of the wind turbines? Not being familiar with the weight and number per area of those wind turbines, I think it's safe to say that a slightly larger overburden will not cause anything serious. The mean depth of the earthquakes is at over 5 km, at which the added pressure from the weight of the turbines is insignificant.
Apparently the earthquakes have been linked to the disposal of wastewater produced during oil extraction that has been injected more deeply into the ground. So the difference with regular fracking is that the idea is for the water to stay in the underground; this increase in pressure/volume can definitely cause earthquakes.

640
It really can't be put any more simple than that the plane follows the atmosphere and the atmosphere follows the earth's curve.

Quote
(...) no amount of your words will change that.
What's the point of having a closed mind?

641
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 18, 2016, 07:04:13 AM »
So, my question is: what made up the mantle part of the earth? Is it magma? Or layer of rocks? Or both?

The mantle is basically a massive layer of rock; it's not molten, but very hot and on long time scale can "flow", so in geological processes it can act like a liquid. It's not molten because of the high pressure of the overlying rocks. If you were to take the pressure off, it would melt. The mantle rocks are mostly made up of a green mineral named olivine (in gem form known as peridot), although the deeper down you go, some minerals change due to the pressure. We know a lot about what the mantle is made of because it sometimes comes to the surface in mountain belts, and mantle blobs can be included in volcanic rocks. Some meteorites also resemble the earth's mantle because they are from the mantle part of large asteroids or planetary bodies.

642
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 18, 2016, 05:57:17 AM »
Plate tectonics, anyone?
Why would the average person care about plate tectonics?
The average person may not be interested, but flat earth / globe earth debaters might find it interesting, especially in the context of antarctica.

643
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 18, 2016, 03:23:56 AM »
Modern geology cannot explain even the official chronology of history of the last 5,000 years.

Enlighten me. Unless you mean that pyramid rambling, I'm not a mathematician or archeologist dangit.

644
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 03:16:37 PM »
Srsly tho, don't let some of the more colorful members bug you too much. There are probably some threads already started that you could add your expertise to, just use the search. It's ok to revive an older thread.

Good to know, thanks :)

645
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 03:07:53 PM »
Can I? Maybe. Will I? No. Once again, I want to educate, not fight someones beliefs.



PS. a short period of decrease in the rate of axial precession does not indicate a persistent trend, and the recorded fluctiation is rather insignificant. If it's proven to be a long term thing, sure, but this is nothing.

646
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 02:53:06 PM »
This specific discussion is going nowhere so I will no longer be part of it. I'm here for geology, not for senseless fighting over what you believe in. If you have actual geology questions, feel free to ask them.

647
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 02:44:53 PM »
All I see you do is throwing unsolved problems at us like it's going to take down everything we believe in. What's your point? Yes, science is not done. For now, we use the best working theory. Got a problem with that, then you should write a paper and submit it to some journal and see how the scientific community responds to it. Come up with a better theory. Basically you have like two or three paradoxes, that's all. I say, they are eventually solvable, and there is no better theory out there.

That's how science works, deal with it.

648
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 02:31:11 PM »
And I'm sure that some day it will be solved. Meanwhile, these two problems are not even close enough to overthrow our modern ideas of geology.

And here you are claiming we have two more bodies in the solar system, which leave no trace whatsoever in the orbits of other bodies?

649
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 02:21:46 PM »
Even though my education has provided me with a decent knowledge of physics, I do not claim to be a physicist and this is beyond the level of physics which I want to go. I'm a geologist, not a physicist. I also do not feel the need to explain your fancy paradoxes. There are plenty more ways of dating which you have totally overlooked. We have geological records of how days got longer. Lunar cycles, etcetera. Considering the rate at which that happens right now, we can interpret the time it has taken for the current system to have evolved from those we find in the geological record (sediments).


 Like I said in my first post, I'm not here to battle your beliefs, I just want to explain geology if necessary. Plate tectonics, anyone?

650
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 01:59:36 PM »
You're quoting me physics stuff from back in 1675. Science has moved on, deal with it. And I feel like the faint young sun paradox is not my field of expertise, and after reading the wikipedia page on it, I don't even see the issue.

Quote
Granite is intrusive, meaning it cools inside the already warm crust, giving it a long time to cool down and grow large crystals.

You still don't get it.
Please tell me what I don't get.


I just remembered more proof for how we know the core is iron. Meteorites are excellent for giving us insights in the internals of rocky planets.
"Stony-iron meteorites formed at the core/mantle interfaces of small asteroidal parents."
Source: Greenberg, R., Chapman, C.R., 1984, Asteroids and Meteorites: Origin of Stony-Iron Meteorites at Mantle-Core Boundaries. Icarus vol. 57 p. 267-279

651
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 01:41:42 PM »
Quote
Warning - while you were typing 16 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
LOL.


Great Wall of China text

Wow, do you really expect me to read all of that?

What immediately caught my eye is how you claim that there is no such thing as an iron core for the earth.

>those liquid layers of iron and nickel could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place at all
Ever heard of gravity? Differentiation on density is what caused the earth to be subdivided into a crust, mantle and core, rather than being a homogeneous blob.

>What is more, the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have been followed immediately by cooling.
A lack of a proper explanation does not immediately disprove it. Science is a work in progress and if you sit tight someone will sooner or later explain it to you in detail. With the shell, do you mean the crust? Your terminology is confusing me. Keep in mind that differentiation is not the only process going on in the earth and it is therefore unreasonable to expect the earth to be perfectly layered by element.

>If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reasons this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.
Source? Your post is a mess of links and I'm not going to search through it, if you were familiar with scientific writing you'd know that you should have the reference right there when you use it.
Then you get all wall-of-texty again on how a liquid outer core is not possible (even though this liquid outer core is what makes the magnetism work, and the liquid outer core is backed up by seismics, which sure isn't unscientific). Indeed, there is no proper explanation for magnetic reversals, that's still a work in progress. I'm not going to read the rest of that specific post basically because I no longer care about your magnetism ramblings.
I want to add that just because science does not have a fully working theory for something yet, that does not mean that it's false. That's the whole point of science. Develop a theory; does it not work? Develop a better one. The prevailing theory of the moment means that it may not be perfect, but better than anything else so far. And just because one aspect of it does not make complete sense does not mean that the entire theory should go out the window. Honestly I can't be arsed to read through your wall of text on magnetism but I'd like to see you come up with a better explanation, and if possible, keep it short. I'm not here to read for days.



Lets move on to granite.

>When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite.
Rhyolite is indeed the finer grained brother of granite. The crystals are smaller because it cooled more rapidly. Granite is intrusive, meaning it cools inside the already warm crust, giving it a long time to cool down and grow large crystals. I'm certain that we are talking about time scales that are unrealistic to reproduce in lab testing. I'm not giving you a source because this is like geology 101.

>Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick.
Well this is a gross overstatement.

> https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/catastrophic-granite-formation/
The issue I have with sources like this, is that they use the Bible as a reference. I do not have anything against the Bible, but for something to be 100% the truth, you should be able to make it work without the Bible as well.

> Geologist's built the theory of an evolving earth on the premise that the basement granites formed naturally. They did this without having firm scientific evidence for their formation.
There was a time when we believed that granite formed as an evaporation product of the sea. We've come from far :)

> (30) Rhyolite is a pale rock with tiny crystals that is said to be the result of granite cooling over a long time under the earth's surface.
Wrong wrong wrong. Rhyolite is compositionally equal to granite, but cooled more rapidly, giving the crystals less time to develop, hence the smaller crystals.

> (31) It is assumed that granite forms very deep under the surface, because they have larger crystals than rhyolite. But rhyolite samples said to have formed 1683 feet below the surface only have tiny crystals.
Once again, it's about the cooling rate. Also, 1683 feet under the surface is cute. One of my recent research projects involved rocks that had been subducted to a depth of well over 50 km. It's important to be able to put things into perspective, into the right order of magnitude. Not being able to do this is probably why a lot of people do not believe what they are told, simply because it can be hard to perceive if you have no clue of the actual magnitude of our world.

> (32) Experiments were conducted in the 1960's where granite was melted, then cooled slowly under conditions similar to those believed to exist deep inside the earth. The result produced a rock identical to rhyolite.
Not slow enough dangit, also, try using more recent research.

> (33) Granite halos therefore show that granites formed under unnatural conditions.
Tell me more, I'm listening.

> (35) Mixing should occur if different types of rocks formed from molten magma that cooled over millions of years. There should not be distinct boundaries between them.
Sometimes even the ocean does not mix properly purely based on a slightly different temperature and salinity. Diffusion, sure, but it's very possible to have two liquid phases not mix properly. Or from one after the other. Or evolve slowly over time, i.e. crystallize feldspar first, and the composition of the melt changes and produces a different rock.
There's this high grade metamorphic rock type called migmatite. It's basically defined by the rock getting partially melted by the heat, resulting into intercalations of metamorphic rock that hasn't molten and granite-like layers. I'm mentioning this, because I recently came across a paper that stated the partial melt of metamorphic rocks like this to be a good potential source of granites. I also once was on an outcrop of granite, with a xenolith of wall rock in it. That means that a chunk of the wall of the magma chamber fell in and they kinda stick out, it's hard to miss. How does that happen if it formed as a solid rock? It doesn't.



Now for your isotopic dating things... I'm not going to read all of it, if you can sum it up shortly that would be great. Just some comments:

>Just try to submit to any c14 lab a sample of organic matter and ask them to date it. The lab will ask your idea of the age of the sample, then it fiddles with the lots of knobs (‘fine-tuning’) and gives you the result as you’ve ‘expected’.
You're accusing labs of fabricating data and that is a very serious allegation. Proof? I don't think C14 is that relevant even, it's just a short time scale thing, and not exactly my specialty. I'm more interested in things like zircon dating, and Ar/Ar, Rb/Sr. And I and friends of mine have first hand performed the dating and measurements and I can assure you that they are not fabricated data. Funny enough, someone I know recently had some rocks dated and the results actually were not at all expected, however still can be explained.

>Everybody’s happy: lab makes good money by making an expensive test,
The lab over here sure as hell does not make a profit. Money does play an important role in academics, exactly for this reason: they need money to be able to do research.

>"All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' "
Yes, fluid-rock interactions can screw things up, but obviously scientists are aware of that and make sure to not date an altered rock. As for diffusion between minerals, there's a thing as whole rock dating, and finally there are minerals where the required elements do not just hop around. Results also tend to be remarkably consistent, which adds to the idea that we're not just dating open systems. Dating is a complex method and you're just assuming that scientists are messing around without even discussing the potential error in their methods. Not cool.

>a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks,
>some rocks

Enough said, really.

>b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks.
And this is extensively mentioned in research that uses Ar/Ar and K/Ar.

>Heating can cause argon to leave a rock and make it look younger.
Well this is just an uninformed comment; Ar/Ar and K/Ar are used for cooling ages, not formation ages. Crystals have a temperature below which Argon no longer escapes (closure temperature); the cooling below this point is what you measure with Ar/Ar.

>If the minerals in the lava did not melt with the lava, one can obtain an age that is too old.
I can not see this being an issue since a partial melt will be obvious to the geologist.

>blah blah sediments can have deposited super rapidly and also eroded super rapidly
Right now you're just assuming that ALL sedimentary rocks were exceptional cases, which is downright ridiculous. The present is the key to the past, meaning that processes as they occur right now are similar to in the past, so if now one in a thousand sedimentation rates are ridiculously high, that means that it's illogical to expect all sedimentation rates in the past to have been ridiculously high.

>The methods described above cannot be used to date anything.
There's an issue with a method, and you immediately throw it out the window, even though scientists have excellent ways of dealing with said issue.

I'm done for now.



Finally, I strongly advise you to seek for information in actual scientific journals.

652
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 12:08:16 PM »
Hence this thread; any questions regarding the earth's origin, interior, magnetic field, plate tectonics, rock dating, feel free to ask. Or anything else that's related and needs clearing up, really.

It takes less than thirty seconds to put an end to your incursion here.

You have no answers when it comes to the origin of the granite, the isotope dating paradoxes, the comets' tails dating proofs and much more.

Imagine what would happen to you if I were to bring up the three body problem paradox, that is, the fact that the RE orbital equations of motion lead to homoclinic tangles.

What exactly is the problem with the theory that granite is the result of melting crustal rocks? Furthermore I'm not familiar with the isotope dating paradoxes, the comets' tails dating proofs and "much more", so... entertain me.

653
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 11:20:01 AM »
The earth really isn't a sphere, it's a spheroid apparently

Absolutely, as the result of the earth's spin. It's also because of this, that Mount Everest's peak isn't the furthest mountain peak from the earth's center, but rather Chimborazo in Ecuador (6,263 m or 20,548 ft) as it is located at the equator. I also want to add this neat little wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

Welcome to FES RocksEverywhere. Good luck!

Thank you!

654
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 10:09:00 AM »
Are you deliberately trying to stump me?  :(

I know how all the things in your question seperately work but the whole question makes 0 sense to me. What's the relation even between the magnetic field and orbital patterns?

655
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 09:26:03 AM »
I appreciate what you do, but believe me - it won't work.

People here are like 40% round earthers, 40% trolls, and 10% retards or maniacs that REALLY believe the earth is flat.

Obviously, discussion does not make sense with any of those groups. But you'll see yourself, might be I'm wrong :)
Yeah I figured this place would attract a lot of trolls and people who just really really like arguing. Hopefully there's some actual interest.

656
Flat Earth Debate / I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« on: September 17, 2016, 08:47:19 AM »
Hey everyone,

I've been reading in this forum for a while now and quite often a subject related to geology would come along, and sometimes a lot of good information and explanations were left out. Hence this thread; any questions regarding the earth's origin, interior, magnetic field, plate tectonics, rock dating, feel free to ask. Or anything else that's related and needs clearing up, really.

PS. I'm a globe earther and feel very comfortable about it. The model works.
I aim to educate people but actively trying to destroy beliefs goes against my morals.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22]