Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core

[singular_me]

is the comet theory about to go ashtray? Thats the problem with sciences, it is always based on the data available, then a new discovery occurs which reshuffles everything.

-------------------

12 June 2014 by Andy Coghlan

A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth's surface. The finding could help explain where Earth's seas came from.

The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometres underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth's surface and its core.

The huge size of the reservoir throws new light on the origin of Earth's water. Some geologists think water arrived in comets as they struck the planet, but the new discovery supports an alternative idea that the oceans gradually oozed out of the interior of the early Earth.

"It's good evidence the Earth's water came from within," says Steven Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The hidden water could also act as a buffer for the oceans on the surface, explaining why they have stayed the same size for millions of years.

Pinging the planet

Jacobsen's team used 2000 seismometers to study the seismic waves generated by more than 500 earthquakes. These waves move throughout Earth's interior, including the core, and can be detected at the surface. "They make the Earth ring like a bell for days afterwards," says Jacobsen.

By measuring the speed of the waves at different depths, the team could figure out which types of rocks the waves were passing through. The water layer revealed itself because the waves slowed down, as it takes them longer to get through soggy rock than dry rock.

Jacobsen worked out in advance what would happen to the waves if water-containing ringwoodite was present. He grew ringwoodite in his lab, and exposed samples of it to massive pressures and temperatures matching those at 700 kilometres down.

Sure enough, they found signs of wet ringwoodite in the transition zone 700 kilometres down, which divides the upper and lower regions of the mantle. At that depth, the pressures and temperatures are just right to squeeze the water out of the ringwoodite. "It's rock with water along the boundaries between the grains, almost as if they're sweating," says Jacobsen.
Damp down there

Jacobsen's finding supports a recent study by Graham Pearson of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. Pearson studied a diamond from the transition zone that had been carried to the surface in a volcano, and found that it contained water-bearing ringwoodite, the first strong evidence that there was lots of water in the transition zone (Nature, doi.org/s6h).

"Since our initial report of hydrous ringwoodite, we've found another ringwoodite crystal, also containing water, so the evidence is now very strong," says Pearson.

So far, Jacobsen only has evidence that the watery rock sits beneath the US. He now wants to find out if it wraps around the entire planet.

"We should be grateful for this deep reservoir," says Jacobsen. "If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC|NSNS|2013-GLOBAL-hoot#.U6C80yjyT0e

[osoab]

are they selling derivatives yet?

[aeondaze]

Thats the problem with sciences, it always based on the data available, then a new discovery occurs which reshuffles everything.

As opposed to your way, which is to completely ignore all or any data available and just go on wild speculation with no basis in fact?

This has to be one of the stupidest things you've ever written, and thats saying somehting because you've written a LOT of really stupid things.

o)(~

[singular_me]

new findings defying older theories. all theories have a life cycle, either caused by ignorance or disinformation.

Some geologists think water arrived in comets as they struck the planet, but the new discovery supports an alternative idea that the oceans gradually oozed out of the interior of the early Earth.

to progress all data must be challenged... and when they arent, serendipity makes it happen :)



As opposed to your way, which is to completely ignore all or any data available and just go on wild speculation with no basis in fact?

This has to be one of the stupidest things you've ever written, and thats saying somehting because you've written a LOT of really stupid things.

o)(~

[Cebu_4_2]

What about the expanding Earth phenomenon?


http://youtu.be/7kL7qDeI05U

[singular_me]

dont know what to make of this one, but I am all ears and ready to reconsider. I will not discard the possibility I mean.




What about the expanding Earth phenomenon?

[aeondaze]

There you go again picking and choosing what ever it is you like that the scientist discovers. Rejecting sound evidence for some theories on the one hand and embracing all the strange new findings that science brings, then turning around and castegating them because they discovered something new.

On the one hand you have a vitriolic hate for scientists which is clear, and on the other you cannot live without them.

The fact is science is the ONLY game in town and you can't admit it, even you in your hate pour over their findings lol...:D

Any way, they've only found this particular rock in the US, not anywhere else (yet) and they state, that it is a porous rock which contains the water which is under high temp and pressure, which means MOST of the mass of this body is made of ROCK, not water.

You don't trust scientists do you, but you are willing to accept this without question because it supposedly supports some wackjob theory you harbour about the earths origins.

Whose to say these aren't GROSS overestimations that serve only to titilate a novice audience. These are preliminary findings, preliminary findings get overturned and re-estimated every hour of every day, it the nature of the scientific method, but I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

[singular_me]

yeah aeon, for several centuries, they taught earth was flat :)



There you go again picking and choosing what ever it is you like that the scientist discovers. Rejecting sound evidence for some theories on the one hand and embracing all the strange new findings that science brings, then turning around and castegating them because they discovered something new.

On the one hand you have a vitriolic hate for scientists which is clear, and on the other you cannot live without them.

The fact is science is the ONLY game in town and you can't admit it, even you in your hate pour over their findings lol...:D

Any way, they've only found this particular rock in the US, not anywhere else (yet) and they state, that it is a porous rock which contains the water which is under high temp and pressure, which means MOST of the mass of this body is made of ROCK, not water.

You don't trust scientists do you, but you are willing to accept this without question because it supposedly supports some wackjob theory you harbour about the earths origins.

Whose to say these aren't GROSS overestimations that serve only to titilate a novice audience. These are preliminary findings, preliminary findings get overturned and re-estimated every hour of every day, it the nature of the scientific method, but I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

[aeondaze]

yeah aeon, for several centuries, they taught earth was flat :)

No they didn't.

Modern science was in its infancy back then and was ridicules and thought of the Devils work, people were still messing around with alchemy trying to find the elixir of life.

IT WAS THE PAPACY THAT TAUGHT THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DUFUS, NOT 'SCIENCE', IT DIDN'T EVEN EXIST THEN!

you have a fucked up view of the world thats for sure, its laughable...

[Cebu_4_2]

dont know what to make of this one, but I am all ears and ready to reconsider. I will not discard the possibility I mean.

As crazy as it sounds the simplicity with the idea makes a lot of the old age dinosaur speculation come into play. At least look into how the countries fit together, this can't be made up unless the countries as they present them is false. I have no way of knowing if what they present as in shapes are in fact real.

[Celtic Rogue]

I still dont think it totally debunks the comets and asteroids bringing the water to our planet. Why couldnt the water have seeped down into he planet until it found an impermeable layer that trapped the water from the surface. Water does not rise on its own it settles. There are theories that once the entire planet was covered in water. It would make sense to me that it worked its way down into the interior of the planet when seismic activity opened up a crack or two in the surface to the depths of the crust. Did they say it was fresh or salt water? If its fresh then I would agree with the story... but if its salt water then it makes sense that it is just the water from the surface that has found a way into the mantle.

[singular_me]

so do you mean the expansion would have released water from deep beneath the surface?



As crazy as it sounds the simplicity with the idea makes a lot of the old age dinosaur speculation come into play. At least look into how the countries fit together, this can't be made up unless the countries as they present them is false. I have no way of knowing if what they present as in shapes are in fact real.

[Neuro]

This is my crazy ass theory. Earth was much smaller in volume 70 million years ago and included the moon. It was spinning much faster, so the centripetal force equalled the gravity of earth-moon mass around the equator, and therefore around equator you had zero or close to zero gravity condition, thus you had ferns hundreds of meters high, dinosaurs weighing tens of tons, flying insects the size of albatrosses, earth was continuing to shrink, until the the centripetal force tore away a sizable chunk of equator... This became the moon, as the moons gravity pull as it was much closer to earth in the beginning was much stronger it started expanding earth, super compressed hydrogen in earths core started seeping out through the torn mantel and crust some of it reacting with oxygen creating the water of the oceans, the rest dissipating into space. Africa, South America, Australia, India and Antarctic was part of the South Pole, North America, Europe and Asia was part of the North Pole, and then started migrating towards the torn off equator, tearing apart as earth was expanding, also due to the migration towards the wider equator. No ocean floor is older than 65 million years. The backside of the moon is lighter, so that is were earths crust ended, and the heavier mantel formed the moons 'front'. Probably on the dark side of the moon you will find remains of super dinosaurs with a bit of digging, the remains on earth were the small ones...

hehehe, isn't this the craziest thing you ever heard? ;D Imagine the fireworks!

[singular_me]

what I find interesting is that the H2O is fuel for the stars... and that it is present around earth's magma.

the article refers to "oceans" so Id assume it is salty... but they may use the word oceans because of its size.



I still dont think it totally debunks the comets and asteroids bringing the water to our planet. Why couldnt the water have seeped down into he planet until it found an impermeable layer that trapped the water from the surface. Water does not rise on its own it settles. There are theories that once the entire planet was covered in water. It would make sense to me that it worked its way down into the interior of the planet when seismic activity opened up a crack or two in the surface to the depths of the crust. Did they say it was fresh or salt water? If its fresh then I would agree with the story... but if its salt water then it makes sense that it is just the water from the surface that has found a way into the mantle.

[brosil]

"is the comet theory about to go ashtray? Thats the problem with sciences, it is always based on the data available, then a new discovery occurs which reshuffles everything."

I see nothing wrong with that statement. It's been true many times. " Man can never travel faster than 35 mph. as it will rip the lungs from the body" " Man can never fly. " " Heavier than air aircraft will never fly" " " The sound barrier can never be broken. Any aircraft doing so would simply disintegrate" " Space travel is impossible" Facts may be hard to swallow but they cure ignorance.

[Cebu_4_2]

I definitely like it! I will toss this to my son and see what he says....


This is my crazy ass theory. Earth was much smaller in volume 70 million years ago and included the moon. It was spinning much faster, so the centripetal force equalled the gravity of earth-moon mass around the equator, and therefore around equator you had zero or close to zero gravity condition, thus you had ferns hundreds of meters high, dinosaurs weighing tens of tons, flying insects the size of albatrosses, earth was continuing to shrink, until the the centripetal force tore away a sizable chunk of equator... This became the moon, as the moons gravity pull as it was much closer to earth in the beginning was much stronger it started expanding earth, super compressed hydrogen in earths core started seeping out through the torn mantel and crust some of it reacting with oxygen creating the water of the oceans, the rest dissipating into space. Africa, South America, Australia, India and Antarctic was part of the South Pole, North America, Europe and Asia was part of the North Pole, and then started migrating towards the torn off equator, tearing apart as earth was expanding, also due to the migration towards the wider equator. No ocean floor is older than 65 million years. The backside of the moon is lighter, so that is were earths crust ended, and the heavier mantel formed the moons 'front'. Probably on the dark side of the moon you will find remains of super dinosaurs with a bit of digging, the remains on earth were the small ones...

hehehe, isn't this the craziest thing you ever heard? ;D Imagine the fireworks!

[Horn]

the new discovery supports an alternative idea that the oceans gradually oozed out of the interior of the early Earth.

Has anyone ever seen water oozing upward?

maybe it was a poor choice of words, i have seen geysers.

I think this is partial theory of that new centrist scientist movement and principle...

[singular_me]

exactly, LOL... you are going backward, while I am moving forward.... every time a huge leap was made, old theories fell apart and that is what I simply meant. Without conflicts and setbacks, it is impossible to progress. Certains theories have to be abandoned, other come to life. That is the price of knowledge. What we agree today on may not be holding any water in, say, 100 years. Sometimes time frames can be longer... but eventually, the reshuffling occurs.

There will always be better than what we currently know. Many scientists claim that the day we happen to understand the functions of black holes, astrophysics as we know it will be "over" ... clock is ticking.




"is the comet theory about to go ashtray? Thats the problem with sciences, it is always based on the data available, then a new discovery occurs which reshuffles everything."

I see nothing wrong with that statement. It's been true many times. " Man can never travel faster than 35 mph. as it will rip the lungs from the body" " Man can never fly. " " Heavier than air aircraft will never fly" " " The sound barrier can never be broken. Any aircraft doing so would simply disintegrate" " Space travel is impossible" Facts may be hard to swallow but they cure ignorance.

[singular_me]

I dont think they really know much more than the discovery itself, assumptions go wild

the 'ocean' may work as a barrier to contain the magna, keeping it cool at the surface, otherwise earth would have melted down - or burned - a long while ago. Does this make sense? The ocean also may play a role in earth's magnetism, water has very specific properties.



Has anyone ever seen water oozing upward?

maybe it was a poor choice of words, i have seen geysers.

I think this is partial theory of that new centrist scientist movement and principle...

[Glass]

yes the earth was flat once. Have to feel for all those sailors who fell off the edge before it was made round.


"We should be grateful for this deep reservoir," says Jacobsen. "If it wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out."

or if the planet was a few more degrees warmer it might be in the atmosphere.

I'd be interested to see what this watery rock looks like.

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

Interesting stuff. Discovered by an Aussie as well.

[Horn]

6442


Tests on the mineral found that about 1.5% of its weight is water. "That doesn't sound like much, but when you calculate the vast volumes of ringwoodite thought to exist in the deep Earth, the amount of water might be as high as that contained in all the world's oceans,"

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/12/rough-diamond-water-earth-wet-zone

[Horn]

Lime and limpid green's the sound that surrounds the icy water underground.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR20k5uMnl0

[Carl]

dont know what to make of this one, but I am all ears and ready to reconsider. I will not discard the possibility I mean.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=304&v=epwg6Od49e8

[Horn]

They don't call it a coronal mass ejection because it contains 0 mass, Carl.

And just because u have an fancy English accent won't change Iron ions.

[Horn]

Ultrafast “Hydrogen on Demand”-technology by means of iron-catalysis

http://www.beilstein.tv/tvpost/ultrafast-hydrogen-on-demand-technology-by-means-of-iron-catalysis/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIaf9LDJR9c

[Neuro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=304&v=epwg6Od49e8
He doesn't adress why the ocean floor of the pacific isn't older than 65 million years! According to mainstream geology continents are gliding intowards the Pacific Ocean!