The Deep Water Cycle

Very intresting! Nice post.
It sounds a little like some kind of life form.
earth is some kind of odd life form.

a reply to: Terpene

They are also linked to coockooo... So instead of adressing the simple scenario described, you jump to the existing coockoo theories we all know, and not adress the scenario and it's effects on pressure. Why, else would you conduct a discussion like that?

You did not describe any "simple scenarios" but simply made a statement and asked a question, see below.

There is violent enough activity in the universe to affect gravity.
Would pressure be affected by the gravitational pull of another celestial body passing a little to close?

Describe your scenario where the Earth's gravitation and pressure is affected via "violent activity" and i will endeavor to address it.

One way for that to happen would be for a massive planetary body, aka the likes of the alleged ""Nibiru/Wormwood/Nemesis"" to come anywhere near the inner planets, or inside the orbit of Jupiter, in which case the likes of the ring of fire volcanos on Earth would most likely erupt and say hello one after the other or all at the one time depending on the mass and vicinity of the planetary body.

The asteroid belt is another possible candidate for something rather violent happening in our cosmic neighborhood.

Que Tiamat i suppose going pop or colliding with something else?

Things like that can happen, and just because we have no memory of it happening doesn't mean it never did or can't.

Really, i would never have guessed that could be the case considering the age of the star system compared to humanity or our small span of recorded history.

Try and keep the scenario to which this thread attempts to give scientific counterpart in mind.

Ile do it my way you do it your way, its the best you can hope for trust me.

I'm just trying to create scenarios that could lead to a massive release of the earth bound water, so you can scientifically discredit them. On my first follow up question you start to argue with pop culture, I know you can do better...

I gave you scenarios and you called them "coockooo".

If you do not like them that's your own bag of spanners to carry and contend with.

I don't place much stock in such myself but nonetheless, they tick your box where affecting the likes of orbits and gravitational pull are concerned.

How does gravity affect pressure? Just to think big.

That would be significantly where the likes of fluids liquids and gases are concerned depending on mass as far as im aware.

We could also go small and ask. How would a sudden evaporation of all the surface water effect pressure on the areas below?

When has that ever happened here on Earth?

But If there were a sudden and complete evaporation of all the surface water on planet, it would have a significant impact on the atmospheric pressure and the pressure distribution across the entire Earth.

Is it a rise or a lowering of the pressure that affects the release of the bound water?

The release of bound water in rock is influenced by changes in pressure, specifically a decrease in pressure due to the phenomenon known as "desorption" or "depressurisation".

a reply to: Terpene

What if the gravity lessens and the core sort of expands?

You realise that for the gravity of our planet to somehow "lessen" there would need to be a significant reduction in the mass of the planet because the force of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of an object which in this case is Earth.

Also the gravitational effects that we experience here on the surface of the planet, or for that matter in the Earth's mantle, are down to the planet's mass and shape, so changes in the core, whether through expansion or contraction, would not have a noticeable impact on the gravity of the planet.

In my mind not only water is affected by moons gravity.

You're correct on that score as the gravitational force exerted by the moon, and to a lesser extent, the Sun, affects not only water but all objects on Earth.

why can't we have magma tides?

Worth considering that tidal forces do indeed influence the Earth's interior, including magma, but the effects are rather "subtle" and not exactly easy to observe.

If the core was doing strange things could it also melt the water holding materials?

What strange things?

web.fscj.edu...#:~:text=Gravitational%20force%20%2Dan%20attractive%20force,distance%20between%20the%20two%20ob jects.
en.wikipedia.org...
neildegrassetyson.com...

a reply to: komangwidiatmika

Apparently, we are drinking the same water as the dinosaurs did simply down to the water cycle of the planet.

a reply to: andy06shake

Thanks for your thorough answers, I totally get why none if the proposed scenarios is reconciled with our current understanding of our universe, but what do we really know... Stumbling trough the dark Matter...

Gravity and mass, yes, wasn't it the Higgs boson that's ment to affect those parameters, and what about the graviton, both are higly elusive and still rather theoretical. I wouldn't quite put it past our current scientific model to not actually have a clue what gravity is and where it comes from and how it interacts with matter.

We learn new things everyday about the truth of our universe.

there might be mechanisms at work we never witnessed so far, that affect gravity on a quantum level?

A popculture scenario like the ones you mentioned could probably be enough for a nice magma tide melting parts of the water holding crust and more aligned with what we know so far about our universe....

But then again those scenarios where the gravitational effect would cause unknown dynamics to the earthboznd water would probably all come with some adverse effects before the water even becomes a problem...

a reply to: Terpene

No bother Terpene i did not really have the proper time to provide adequate responses on the other page.

Same predicament once again.

I'm driving right now(or will be in a min).

Our understanding of gravity at the quantum level is still incomplete, and there are many open questions in the field of theoretical physics.

Earth exists just like ourselves at the macro scale through and the effects of quantum gravity on planets, including Earth, are not directly observable as far as i know.

Quantum gravity effects are expected to become significant in extreme conditions such as those found near the Planck scale.

originally posted by: Terpene

What if the gravity lessens and the core sort of expands?

Yeah exactly, An expanded core could increase pressure enough to send vast amounts of water to the surface

originally posted by: andy06shake

Our understanding of gravity at the quantum level is still incomplete, and there are many open questions in the field of theoretical physics.

It's also vastly incoherent beyond our solar system, they theorized the existence of dark matter to make the equations work outside our solar system. People still believe this blindly because the experts tell them, yet there's a 2,000% discrepancy of mass between theoretical and what is actually observed beyond our solar system. For this reason I believe it could rightly be called 'pseudo-science'.

I don't want to derail this thread, but just a reminder where Cooperton gets a lot of his nonsense.



digitalcommons.cedarville.edu...

If you want to waste some time, go through this "journal". You'll notice there isn't a single paper with experimental data, only contrarian Creationist theory with absolutely no science behind any of it.

Ok, back to the title of this thread, which is a good one.

a reply to: Terpene

The combined ideal gas laws solve your problem:

PV = nRT where

P = pressure
V = volume
n = Avogadro's number (the approximate number of gas molecules)
R = gas constant
T = temperature

Under standard pressure which is 760 Torr (mm Hg).

Now, does gravity change pressure? Yes. Positive pressure increases gravity. That gets complicated, however, because increased pressure creates space-time curvature. That's when you have to go to Einstein for a more detailed answer (the stress-energy tensor).

Atmospheric air pressure occurs because the atmosphere is made of stuff that has mass, and therefore has weight due to gravity. The pressure of an atmosphere on a horizontal surface represents the total mass of a column of atmosphere from that surface all the way up into space. Of course atmospheric pressure works in all directions; considering only the vertical force allows us to understand how that pressure arises. As we travel up that column, pressure decreases because there is less mass above to weigh down on the column below.

As we travel up the column, gravity decreases (inversely proportional to square of distance from Earth's center) but we can ignore this because the atmospheric "column" isn't a uniform section - it is a tapered section (converges to an imaginary point at the Earth's center) which exactly cancels out the decrease due to gravity because the cross-section of our atmospheric slice will increase in area as the square of distance from the Earth's center.

If you double the surface gravity, all other things being equal, you will double the weight of that same mass of air, so you will double the pressure at the surface. Doubling the pressure will double the density - the atmosphere will "crowd" closer to the surface and the pressure vs altitude profile will look somewhat different.

physics.stackexchange.com...
physics.stackexchange.com...

I'm not an expert to fluid dynamics, but the above gives you some understanding of these relationships. My physical chemistry professor always said look to "Ye old gas laws" as he called them.

a reply to: Phantom42338

Derail away, though not my call what constitutes thread drift here.

I am well aware of theological journals parading as science. Those exist from all angles. New age ones are bad too. (See Sitchin and company) I always end up clicking on the 'TheArchaeologist" and forgetting it is often the uncritical new age pseudoscience version of discovery.

I am especially annoyed when my favorite science of all gets turned into a 6000 year old "I Dream of Mountain Uplift" narrative.

I like those in the field of "calling out bad science" like archaeologist Israel Finklestein, and the late theologian Michael Heiser.

The former for criticizing "archaeotheology" ("a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other"), and the latter for being critical of taking the writing out of the psychological context of that time. Like not considering how people viewed the world in a way that made superstition inseparable from causality.

a reply to: Degradation33

This is an old article, but it still holds true. Creationism is a money-making scheme invented by an Australian, Ken Ham. The guy is a complete fraud, doesn't pay his taxes, and drags the lame, lazy and the crazy under his control. It's like a Jonestown cult.

The Booming Business of...Creationism?
PUBLISHED TUE, AUG 28 20126:02 PM EDTUPDATED FRI, SEP 13 20134:33 PM EDT

Creationism is proving to be a lucrative business for those religious Americans who take the Bible’s Genesis story literally. There seems to be a growing demand for museums on a mission to debunk evolutionary theory and promote the belief that life was created by God as laid out in Genesis.

www.cnbc.com...

a reply to: cooperton

"Question": What if the gravity lessens and the core sort of expands?

Yeah exactly, An expanded core could increase pressure enough to send vast amounts of water to the surface

And the gravity is going to lessen how? Sudden loss of mass? I think it needs to be exploded to do that.

I still say if you artificially deplete the sun's hydrogen mass (with God's oxidation lasers) to force a red giant phase you can do it.

With good old Sol expanding to its potential, Earth will have the time between the Venus orbit and Earth orbit to melt all the water hoarding polyporphs and force it to the surface via convection and apocalyptic flood volcanism, which may be up to 5% water weight when said and done!

So, I'm fairly sure you can turn the transition zone water into useful liquid if you do that. But I'm not seeing any other way to force all transition zone water out of the ringwoodite and wadsleyite.

And then you sorta change the stability zones and everything if you do the red giant thing.

Which may change when and where upwelling forces the 'water' out.

www.sciencedirect.com...

They argue that, provided the transition zone is richer in H2O than the solubility limit of the mantle at 410 km depth, upwelling mantle in the transition zone must release H2O as it crosses from the wadsleyite to olivine stability field at 410 km. At an approximate temperature of 1500 °C, this water would not exist as a fluid, as shown schematically in Figure 15, but as a hydrous silicate melt.

You're okay with water in magma form though, right?

Honestly, once the magma becomes igneous crystal that polymorphs into another crystal, you rearrange the 'water' into hydroxyl radicals that can only be purged via melting. Which occurs at 660 km depth on one end, and 410 km on the other. Almost like an "island of stability" for safe water storage in the mantle.

originally posted by: Degradation33

And the gravity is going to lessen how? Sudden loss of mass?

No there are a variety of ways that water could be forced onto the surface of the earth without drastic gravitational changes (although that could have been a factor). A temporarily expanded core, increased pressure in the mantle, seismic movement that acts to release pressure from the mantle, and so on. If a sea bed can become a mountain, then it shouldn't be too crazy to think the earth can pressurize some of the water in its various layers to the surface 

You're okay with water in magma form though, right?

Magma is a liquid, supercritical fluid water is different than a simple liquid. I looked up solubility of magma in supercritical fluid but it looks like they're immiscible, meaning they wouldnt mix too well. This would be quite an amazing layer to be able to view.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
I don't want to derail this thread, but just a reminder where Cooperton gets a lot of his nonsense.

Lol no it's very well known among scientists that there is a vast discrepancy of mass for the galactic level between the theory and what is actually observed. They'll admit to it as well. You really have to stop knee-jerk disagreeing with everything I say, it shows you have lost your objectivity.

a reply to: cooperton

No there are a variety of ways that water could be forced onto the surface of the earth. A temporarily expanded core, increased pressure in the mantle, seismic movement that acts to release pressure from the mantle, and so on. If a sea bed can become a mountain, then it shouldn't be too crazy to think the earth can pressurize some of the water in its various layers to the surface

Actually it is crazy, or just misinformed. When you have little to no knowledge, or only selective knowledge on something, you can make many erroneous comparisons.

First and foremost you must accept the timescale of these processes. You're never getting anywhere if you refute things like the rate at which The Mid Atlantic Ridge spreads.

The Mountain uplift is only one part. With the subducting plate causing the uplift goes the supercritical fluid, which mostly gets recycled back to the mantle wedge. A little gets stored in olivine, and the rest accompanies the subducting continental slab though the transition zone to get absorbed.

Magma is a liquid, supercritical fluid water is different than a simple liquid. I looked up solubility of magma in supercritical fluid but it looks like they're immiscible, meaning they wouldnt mix too well.

This quote again:

Separation of slab-derived supercritical fluids into melts and aqueous fluids can commonly occur in most subduction zones. This can suggest that subducting slabs are warm enough to feed sediment-derived supercritical fluids to the overlying mantle wedge in most subduction zones.

Here's a good PDF for the water content of most volcanic magma.

web.uri.edu...



While the upper mantle is 50% olivine, the mantle also has slabs being pulled down by convection made of sediments and the water not recycled to the overlying wedge.

The two work in unison. The olivine morphs into spongey storage crystals at transition depths. Meanwhile the subduction slabs that once raised mountains can bring water to the transition zone to be absorbed at relatively the same rate upwelling of wadsleyite into the olivine zone reintroduces the water in the form of melts.

That's why we don't lose all out water. Which would happen without continuous reintroduction.

Note while this happens to little bit at a time over a prolonged period, MOST of this 'supercritical water' accompanying the slab subduction is immediately returned to the mantle wedge. Most magma in 2-6% water by weight.

As far as hydrothermal vents go that is usually an immediate return to sender thing too. Water seeps into the crust through faults around "spreading ridges" where continental slabs return from the mantle, which also reintroduce some water to the oceans.

Still remains is a fundamental misunderstanding of how geological processes work.

You can't accelerate this process all at once. Plates can only subduct so fast. Magma can only rise so fast. The Deep Water Cycle can only cycle so fast.

You need to DRAMATICALLY increase the temperature/pressure in ways that leave earth uninhabitable to draw it out at once. Because to do so requires YOU TO LITERALLY MELT THE F*CKING EARTH INSTANTANEOUSLY.

Preemptive ETA:

Supercritical Fluid in the Mantle

The link is in OP source post.

Just post this once more.

Subduction-zone magmatism is triggered by the addition of H2O-rich slab-derived components: aqueous fluid, hydrous partial melts, or supercritical fluids from the subducting slab. Geochemical analyses of island arc basalts suggest two slab-derived signatures of a melt and a fluid. These two liquids unite to a supercritical fluid under pressure and temperature conditions beyond a critical endpoint. We ascertain critical endpoints between aqueous fluids and sediment or high-Mg andesite (HMA) melts located, respectively, at 83-km and 92-km depths by using an in situ observation technique. These depths are within the mantle wedge underlying volcanic fronts, which are formed 90 to 200 km above subducting slabs. These data suggest that sediment-derived supercritical fluids, which are fed to the mantle wedge from the subducting slab, react with mantle peridotite to form HMA supercritical fluids. Such HMA supercritical fluids separate into aqueous fluids and HMA melts at 92 km depth during ascent. The aqueous fluids are fluxed into the asthenospheric mantle to form arc basalts, which are locally associated with HMAs in hot subduction zones.

Need to point out the MAIN thing about these supercritical fluids that is relevant here.

It happens AT THE TOP IF THE MANTLE. 50-200 km. The vast majority of the Earth's reserves of hydroxyl 'water' crystal is 210-450 km down, in the transition zone.

While magma has large amounts of water, the vast stores of water up to 4X more than the oceans, is in the transition zone, inside polymorphic rock, and indirectly related to any subducting slab, and the 'water' that may accompany it through the mantle.

a reply to: Degradation33

God's oxidation lasers

That dude is so yesterday...

I'm not seeing any other way to force all transition zone water out of the ringwoodite and wadsleyite.

That's because you haven't seen my graviton lasers yet...

a reply to: cooperton

So you can't prove your biblical flood nonsense, so now you're moving on to dark energy? You're a scream.

a reply to: cooperton

It's also vastly incoherent beyond our solar system, they theorized the existence of dark matter to make the equations work outside our solar system.

If you have a better theory or something to supplant our current understanding of gravity that makes sense and contains a modicum of credibility, im all ears buddy.
And before you feel the need to possibly introduce the likes of the "Electric Universe" hypothesis you should realise it's been debunked and runs contrary to our current understanding of astrophysics and astronomy.

originally posted by: Degradation33

First and foremost you must accept the timescale of these processes. You're never getting anywhere if you refute things like the rate at which The Mid Atlantic Ridge spreads.

And you're not getting anywhere when you refuse to accept that sedimentary rock can form quickly. It's as obvious as a brick forming from mud in the sun. It is a fast process, doesn't take millions of years.

Here's a good PDF for the water content of most volcanic magma.

web.uri.edu...

While the upper mantle is 50% olivine, the mantle also has slabs being pulled down by convection made of sediments and the water not recycled to the overlying wedge.

Of course magma is not rich in water, magma is too hot to maintain water in it's liquid state, it would turn to vapor. They literally say this in the 2nd sentence of the abstract lol:

"This has occurred due to the intense study of melt inclusions trapped in volcanic
phenocrysts, aliquots of magma that have presumably escaped degassing during eruption"

It is obvious there is an abundance of water co-existing in these layers because volcanic eruptions are always accompanied by an immense release of water vapor. In the paper you provided they are merely assessing how any water at all manages to stay in magma as it is solidifying.

the vast stores of water up to 4X more than the oceans, is in the transition zone, inside polymorphic rock

How would water be inside of a rock if the rock is actually molten at these depths? It would not be. The minerals would be liquid (magma) and the water would be in the supercritical fluid state at the temperature and pressure exhibited in these layers. When magma solidifies near earth's surface, yes there will likely be some remnant water (in the form of a hydroxyl group) that gets trapped. But that is not it's state of existence while it is liquified in the mantle.

a reply to: cooperton

How would water be inside of a rock if the rock is actually molten at these depths?

Please stop.

I Answered that.

Though counterintuitive, between 410 km and 660 km, in the transition zone, wadsleyite and ringwoodite are stable, outside this zone, at either end, they are not.

The reason is 101 sh*t. PRESSURE RAISES MELTING POINT.

In the transition zone these two align. It's almost exactly like THE ISLAND OF STABILITY, only determined by temperature, pressure, and melting point.

At the Upper end (410 km) wadsleyite melts (0.9 H2O wt) due to lower pressure pushing it off the island.
At the lower end (660 km) ringwoodite melts (1.4 H2O wt) due to temperature pushing it off.

With 525 km being the transition from one to the other.

But in between is A GIANT SPONGE TRAPPING WATER IN HYDROXYL FORM. That needs either a MASSIVE PRESSURE LOSS (open to theories there) or A MASSIVE TEMPERATURE GAIN. (Possible with a Red Giant, or other life-ending cataclysm).

You got to let go of this possibility that there's this massive reservoir of Freshwater, like an aquifer, in the mantle to flood Earth with.

You're a riot at times. Like it's more hopeful to still keep the possibility scientifically alive. I promise it won't kill God.

You'll see steam in a volcanic eruption and assume is from this massive store of water that supports your hypothesis.

There is drinkable normal ground water in the crust "ahead of the rising magma" that get released..

Gases, released from solution in the magma, along with ground-water heated by the molten rock, escape to the surface through cracks and fissures to form steam vents and geysers.

MAGMA ALSO LOSES ITS WATER DUE TO ASCENT AND PRESSURE.

As magmas ascend to depths shallower than their point of H2O-saturation, they will continually degas H2O to vapor, striving to reach equilibrium during decompression, eruption, and cooling.

So obviously water from the magma can form that steam, and groundwater in contact with the rising magma itself can form steam as well, neither of which have anything to do with transition zone 'water'.

And you're not getting anywhere when you refuse to accept that sedimentary rock can form quickly. It's as obvious as a brick forming from mud in the sun. It is a fast process, doesn't take millions of years.

I do accept how fast sedimentation can happen. Volcanic "sedimentation" of extrusive igneous rock happens overnight..

Sedimentary rock takes way longer, like Calcium-carbonate to limestone is the hundreds of thousands to millions of years range, and billions of tiny dead organisms along the way.

That was covered in the other thread. I'll repeat the quote I used though.

Upright fossils typically occur in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time - decades to thousands of years long - characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal-plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea-level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.

And you still have to acknowledge WHEN the Appalachian ones you use as evidence formed. They formed during The Carboniferous Period. When the Appalachians were the largest mountain chain on earth, taller than the Himalayas, volcanic, ran west-east, and straddled the equator.

The Carboniferous Period is when the Nova Scotia fossil you used as evidence was formed. Can you acknowledge the world looked like this when that happened?



ETA:

And if your wondering what happens to subducting continental slabs at the transition zone. Slabs are important because they bring a lot of the "water" to this depth.

blogs.egu.eu...

a reply to: Degradation33

Spend all that time editing and still leave errors... OCD correct.

Sedimentary rock takes way longer, like Calcium-carbonate to limestone is the hundreds of thousands to millions of years range, and billions of tiny dead organisms along the way.

Supposed to read:

"Sedimentary rock takes way longer, calcium-carbonate, or limestone, is in the hundreds of thousands to millions of years range, with billions of tiny dead organisms along the way."

It's an important error to note.