<a name="20020219.6:33"> page 20020219.6:33 aka granite
On 2002-02-19 07:07, Dunash wrote: To: 11 IK 0 KAYAB
http://www.rense.com/general20/graniteAL.htm
----------------
6:35 A.M. HUb' : yep,. may as well log in on
this D'bait earily on.."EVEN" though i've
very little to say..

Hmmm, another post-n-run from Dunash?

This one is so full of bull that even I (with no training in geology) can see the problems.

Gosh, I guess he's never heard of gravity. By this logic, Earth's atmosphere is impossible - all those swirling gases should just fly off into space!

Divine power? I think not.

He proceeds to imply that planets could be hollow due to a piping effect as they cooled. But once again, he fails to consider the little matter of gravity. An ingot of steel, though massive on the human scale, is far too small for its self-gravity to overcome the "piping" effect. A planet is a different matter.

He also hauls out the old chestnut about Polonium haloes, which has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. I'll look for a link if anybody wants one. I'd guess talk.origins would be likely to have something about it.

As to the cooling rate of granite, I don't have the knowledge to evaluate his claims. I'd like to know just how "rapid" the cooling needs to be to meet his objections. Geologists may consider "rapid" to mean "occurring over less than a million years". However, one simple observation:

Granites are crustal rocks. We don't know what the rocks that make up the bulk of the planet (mantle and core) are like, because we've never drilled down that far. Thus, the conditions that prevail where granites form are not identical to the conditions where most of the planet forms; granites form relatively close to the surface. Thus relatively rapid cooling is possible.

If Gentry is right about granites cooling in "less than three minutes", which seems most unlikely, one wonders why this is seen as the intervention of a divine creator. Isn't it more likely to be the result of some unknown but natural process (akin to supersaturation and subsequent quick-freezing) than the actions of an otherwise undetectable spirit in the sky?

O no, HUb', I see you've contributed an internal link to this discussion!

That site references http://www.hollowplanets.com, where that article seems to have appeared.

Worse, it makes a statement like "molecules of gas repel each other strongly" in concluding that (next sentence): "In order for gases to hold together in the vacuum of space, it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that there was divine power holding them together."

I guess their god is one of capriciousness.

Hey, not only is that not science, it's not even a religion, so far as I know.

Or, how about "There is no evidence that dust particles could ever cling together even in an atmosphere, much less in the vacuum of space." Is this person saying there is nothing such as we call gravity also? I guess that would be one way to make a hollow planet viable.

At least, "granite is in fact igneous rock." Thank the Lord we got something right. Incredibly, he (from Gentry, I guess) points to the cooling of lava into basalt as evidence that molten granite cannot cool "slowly" into granite. The only problem with that is that lava is on the surface, and hence cools relatively quickly. It must be underground and cool much more slowly in order for crystals to form in the melt and produce coarse granite. Wherever he doesn't understand a process, he asserts that that proves divine intervention.

Stop telling God what he must do.

Lots of misinformation and disinformation. What's going to happen when (cringe) these guys (Rense et al) discover Godel's revolving universe theory (which has nothing to do with geocentricity.) No doubt they'll twist concepts out-of-context into some sort of geocentric hodgepodge. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

Heck, both basalt and granite are still being formed today. Albeit, with regard to intrusive igneous rocks, the process is slow on human time scales. Basalt can cool pretty quickly, you can see lava solidifying from your car on the Big Island of Hawaii at Kiluaea National Park.

Granite and basalt (and other rock types) are also being recycled today, via subduction.

None of the above implies any sort of mystical process to keep it going.

If Dunash continues to post and run, I predict he/she will be gone from here.

Dunash does sometimes come back to defenbd the posts, so that's fine.

The page to which he refers is garbage, however. That kind of stuff has been debunked many times, including at talk.origins.

It's not even quite up to the level of being "garbage": it's even worse, it's Churchwood. This guy was the Eric von Daniken of his day, inventing a Pacific Ocean continent of 'Mu' (later linked somehow to Madame Blavatsky's Lemuria even though that was supposed to be in the Indian Ocean) as the basis of all civilisation. Basically, it was the Pacific equivalent of Atlantis, where all great and imponderable things of antiquity had their origin, because the Muvians were such a tremendously advanced, both technologically and psychically, civilisation. Even UFOs, later.

Except that there is fundamentally no possible way to put a continent in the mid-south Pacific basin. Of course, Churchwood wrote long before the theory of plate techtonics arose, but even without that his concept of a sinking Pacific continent was just moonshine. When the linked website says,

the emphasis should definitely be on the word appeared, because there was damn-all reasonable (that is, based on reason) about any of Churchwood's idiotlogy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

One astronomical question about this: while, for reasons that regular readers here might guess [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] I don't have a particular problem with the idea of granite forming overnight, I do question how common it is as an extra-terrestrial building block (per the topic Subject line). Do we know that it appears on the other planets?

The (rather a rocky question) Curtmudgeon

...I just read that article, and now my head hurts.

About granite on other planets, I have no idea. I only had my first geology class today. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] I suppose if you got the right minerals in the right combination and conditions, it could form no matter what planet you're on.

But I also get the impression that that's not what you were asking. Can you clarify a bit?

One guy's opinion, FWIW.
http://www.science.org.au/nova/019/taylor.htm

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought I remembered reading somewhere--granite, per se, isn't found as best we know right now on Mars or anywhere else. I don't know why that might be (and of course, actual prospecting on the ground might show that it really is present, maybe just less common than here), I just thought I had read/heard somewhere that it was only terrestrial.

But it does mean that this isn't an astronomy question, it's purely geology.

The (speaking of geology, I'll have a whisky on the rocks) Curtmudgeon

Granite needs a lot of quiet time so the melt can crystallize into components. It doesn't form at the surface. In order to get it up to the surface, after it has cooled, you need something like plate tectonics.

Planetary science is usually subsumed under astronomy, and I don't think the BA minds. Me, geology was the closest I ever came to a PhD, so I have a soft spot for it.

And the other planets don't show many (if any) signs of tectonics, except I think there was maybe one Jovian moon that does?

I had a lot of fun with Geo at university without ever taking a single class. One of my roomies was a 'rock' major, and he and I often did "coolie" duty when the Geo department would hold their caravan-of-thousands field trips (mainly for the frosh Geo courses). We'd go out ahead of the caravan and set up at the next highway that would have to be crossed, and when the caravan arrived we'd get out on the highway with our red flags and stop the traffic so that the caravan could get across without getting split up (or else the froshes would get lost in the wilds of central Texas). Then when the profs had the kids all gathered around at the next stop, we coolies would sit around and swap lies with each other. Since I was frequently the only non-rockhead coolie-ing, it was a great way to pick up the odd fact or two without paying tuition. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I still have my 20+-year-old coolie flag, in fact--gee, I really could go play in traffic, as so many of my friends keep suggesting. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

There was more than one great story that came out of some of those field trips, too. The buzzard that couldn't lift off from his roadkill lunch fast enough to avoid JD's car, The Tank, and nearly joined us in the front seat was one.... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

The (but it was The Tank, so the windscreen didn't break) Curtmudgeon

I started graduate school in geology, and my advisor was a little startled that I hadn't taken the freshman intro geology class yet, or its equivalent. He decided I didn't need to (he was a geophysicist), but I went ahead with it anyway.

So, my geology knowledge fits in a knapsack.

Curtmudgeon said : And the other planets don't show many (if any) signs of tectonics, except I think there was maybe one Jovian moon that does?

(I haven't figured out the quote dealie on this page yet) .... but with all the volcanic activity on one of the Jovian moons (was it Io or Gandymede?) I would assume that the moon's crust might be moving. But then again with big ole Jupiter's gravity hug kneading the moon, it may be caused by that.

Which leads into a dumb monkey question of mine own. What exactly cause own own plates to move? Unless the sun it exerting one heckuva force, I wouldn't think it could be gravity. Is it that we are in the time period when Earth hasn't cooled off like Mars yet? Then again, plate tectonics has been happening for a long time (I assume since the planet cooled enough to have a crust) so that may not be it. Either way it gets me off to a good tangent, time to go surf up some geology pages and hopefully answer me own question.

Just hit the Reply With Quote button at the bottom of each post, and let it do it for you. There's a quick BBcode primer at the FAQ, too.

What moves plate tectonics is a big unanswered question, although people paid more attention to it thirty years ago when they weren't so certain that plate tectonics actually worked.

Upwellings at spreading centers (ridge push), gravity at ocean trenches (slab pull), and mantle convection are some of the contenders. Most assume it's a combination of factors, including hotspot lubrication. Another big question is the size of the cells in mantle convection. Are they shallow, or do they reach to the core-mantle boundary.

Descending plates appear to be responsible for the Pacific ring of fire volcanoes, but not for the mid-plate hotspots like Hawaii. So, you don't seem to need plate tectonics to have volcanism.

Fresh off some exploits amongst the rock and dirt web pages... but my resident genius (no sarcasm intended) GOW came in for the save.

So we got plate tectonics, but no answer as to why it works? I am surprised geocentrists, creationists, etc have not had a field day with that one.

To recenter this in astronomy, it makes me wonder why our third rock would have this phenomenon, and not all planets. Mercury ... too close to the tremondous gravity of the sun, Venus...that HEAVY atmosphere might stop it... Mars ..maybe not enough gravity and mass... then outwards the gas giants and their moons being kneaded by the giants own gravity...and Pluto being its own little world way out there. Hmm... just another little pip on the roll o the dice for our world. Too close , we burn, too far, we freeze. And something else entirely in our makeup that gives us (and in our own system, only us) plate tectonics.

God knows what He was doing, I feel like an ant trying to contemplate how a (human) city is built. One thing you gotta give thanks to God for, he gave us a darn big platefull of stuff to figure out throughout our lifespan as a species [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Gotta love the world.

Also Gow, thank for the FAQ... perhaps that might give some surcease from my dumb monkey questions. Sten Odenwald's site also helps do that, as does the General Astronomy BB.

(message edited as dumb monkey forget to thank GOW for the helpful FAQ link)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ChallegedChimp on 2002-02-22 08:02 ]</font>

One suggestion or idea is that there is lubrication from the Oceans. Earth is the only planet with oceans, and apparently the only one with active plate tectonics.

Venus apparently builds up internal heat and then periodically completely resurfaces itself. Mars and Io have/had volcanism, but whether they have/had tectonics is an open question.

A couple of other comments:

Gravity has very little to do with it, except to the extent that it is a cause of internal heat buildup.

In general, just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is magic.

Heh, as one of the local Creationists I do have a field day with that question--or rather, the fact that the non-Creationists don't have a ready answer to it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] I have an idea about how it fits in with Creation, but I have to admit that my theory doesn't explain why there might be plate tectonics anywhere other than here, even if it be only a moon. And, of course, there's always that timing thing that gets people so upset with/amused at us Young Earthers. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Indeed. A belief in God doesn't require, or even excuse, a disbelief in science, although of course it does conflict with some scientific theories. Seeing the correlations between God's Word and God's Work requires that we study and learn both; studying only one to the exclusion of the other leads to unbalanced thinking.

The (okay, sermon mode OFF already!) Curtmudgeon

Very true. However, on the other hand, until it is explained, you cannot rule out "magic".

The (not logically, anyhow) Curtmudgeon