So, what about plates in the oceans getting denser and sinking for that reason, thereby letting waters from flood sink into them?*
And, another matter, how exactly is the density of the one or other kind of plates known? Is it just a case of "if higher up, then floats better, then less dense" according to the view plates are all floating on magma?
This I was asking someone a month ago. However, the beauty of internet, although he did not answer, is that someone else was answering at least part of that point yesterday and today:
[After I wrote above I have added material from at least another day:]
- XGralgrathor
- No, it's mostly a matter of seismology. Sound waves travel at different speeds depending on the density of the medium they're travelling through.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sure, but each sounding of the earth quake waves would be kind of, on the modern theory, past travelling through more than one layer, so how would one tell the different speeds from each other if having only direct access to a mean speed?
- XGralgrathor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Kind of like the same way a computer can build a three dimensional model from a returning radar signal. It's technical, and a bit too mathy for me, but it's accurate. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No, the returning radar is at one single speed, so time = distance.
Here we were talking about different speeds.
You see the difference? - XGralgrathor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sure there is a difference. But the basic principle is the same: you can use the returning signal to build a model of the matter encountered. How this works exactly, you'll have to ask a seismologist. Suffice to say that one can build a more of less accurate model of parts of the Earth's interior - at least in terms of density. Of course the exact constitution, the compounds and elements of which the various layers of differing density consist, remain a matter of theoretical prediction. But as the subject here is density, that doesn't really matter right now. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Except that I already noted a key difference where you say "the basic principle is the same".
What the returning signal is "telling" is the time it took for the signal to travel through exactly one medium to an obstacle and then back after reflexion from that obstacle through exactly same medium to the radar.
I can very well see how this would involve a capacity for a seismologist to calculate mean speed and therefore mean density, since distance between epicentre and seimologic station is already known.
My question was how one got from mean density and mean speed to a succession of speeds varying around it and to a set of different densities. - XGralgrathor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"My question was"
And I cannot tell you exactly how such a model is produced. But it has to do with reflections as much as differing speeds. Thankfully, I don't have to know the details; I'm happy to let geologists, seismologists and engineers break their heads over the problem of producing accurate models. I'll just read with great interest their latest hypotheticals and note the decreasing margins of error. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Decreasing margins of error may be due to getting more and more exact as to fact, but also to getting wronger and wronger in a more refined way.
Reflexions ... hmm, those are directed outward, how are they evidence of what is below a plate? - XGralgrathor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, here's an idea: start out by reading Wikipedia on Seismology, and work your way towards a better understanding of the principles involved from there. I mean, even if there are people here who know how it all works, you can hardly expect them to dump it all in a comment section, right?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I have been able to make comments 50 lines long or longer.
Youtube comments are as much the product of users as wikis, except that youtube comments allows tracing each contribution immediately to source an dtherefore following a debate.
I will however look the wiki up. And when having done so, come back here.
Here is one thing I found:
"Because seismic waves commonly propagate efficiently and interact with internal structure, they provide high-resolution noninvasive methods for studying Earth's interior. One of the earliest important discoveries (suggested by Richard Dixon Oldham in 1906 and definitively shown by Harold Jeffreys in 1926) was that the outer core of the earth is liquid. Since S-waves do not pass through liquids, the liquid core causes a 'shadow' on the side of the planet opposite of the earthquake where no direct S-waves are observed. In addition, P-waves travel much slower through the outer core than the mantle."
Plus a diagram:
File:Earthquake wave paths.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earthquake_wave_paths.svg
On diagram nothing is shown as passing through inner core.
THIS is a breakthrough for me.
A) It means we have no evidence from seismology of what exactly inner core is. The Christian theory that Hell is in the exact Middle of the Earth is not affected.
B) It means there are liquids. Wave of such and such a nature does not pass through liquids, and is found at such but not at such other angle from epicentre. So, there are liquids. On which some thing or some several things do "float" in some sense. Which is indeed what the Bible text would predict we find.
Here is more where that came from:
[Nearly, actually another article linked to from it. Namely:
Wikipedia on Structure of the Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth]
"The average density of Earth is 5,515 kg/m3. Since the average density of surface material is only around 3,000 kg/m3, we must conclude that denser materials exist within Earth's core. Seismic measurements show that the core is divided into two parts, a "solid" inner core with a radius of ~1,220 km[3] and a liquid outer core extending beyond it to a radius of ~3,400 km. The densities are between 9,900 and 12,200 kg/m3 in the outer core and 12,600–13,000 kg/m3 in the inner core.[4]
The inner core was discovered in 1936 by Inge Lehmann and is generally believed to be composed primarily of iron and some nickel. It is not necessarily a solid, but, because it is able to deflect seismic waves, it must behave as a solid in some fashion. Experimental evidence has at times been critical of crystal models of the core.[5] Other experimental studies show a discrepancy under high pressure: diamond anvil (static) studies at core pressures yield melting temperatures that are approximately 2000K below those from shock laser (dynamic) studies.[6][7] The laser studies create plasma,[8] and the results are suggestive that constraining inner core conditions will depend on whether the inner core is a solid or is a plasma with the density of a solid. This is an area of active research."
I have no problem believing there is a great density prevailing in Hell.
And since the "solid" inner core "is not necessarily a solid", this is no proof against Hell being there, as Christians have always thought.
That was pretty good news - not for those who are in Hell, but for those on the surface (not yet finally saved, not yet damned either) who are to decide on "science or religion or both".
In this case, it would pretty much be both. - XGralgrathor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"THIS is a breakthrough for me"
The fact that a simple diagram demonstrating a principle does not contain the information you require is a breakthrough for you.
Okay.
"It means [...t]he Christian theory that Hell is in the exact Middle of the Earth is not affected"
[Mild expletive] You mean there are Christians who actually hold such a ridiculous idea? Wow. They must be best friends with the Flat Earth society.
"It means there are liquids"
Really? You wouldn't tell.
"Which is indeed what the Bible text would predict we find"
I'm not even going to ask 'where'. You just lost all credibility. But you've gained a fan!
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"there is a great density prevailing in Hell."
I'm sure nobody would have a good time in Earth's inner core, kid.
"this is no proof against Hell being there, as Christians have always thought"
I'm gonna waive my suspicion that you're putting up a comedy act for the duration, and ask you this: which Christians would that be, boy? Not even creationists dare come out which such silly ideas. And their ideas are already plenty silly.
Thank you. You've made me laugh on this dreary day at the office. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You read me wrong.
The diagram DID include the most basic information that I required.
"You mean there are Christians who actually hold such a ridiculous idea? Wow. They must be best friends with the Flat Earth society."
Not really. Saying Hell is in the CENTRE of the globe is quite incompatible with Flat Earth Cosmology.
- Me before:
- * It means there are liquids
- You:
- * Really? You wouldn't tell.
- Me now:
- * I simply wanted to know HOW we knew.
"I'm sure nobody would have a good time in Earth's inner core, kid."
A good reason not to get there, i e not to sin!
"which Christians would that be, boy?"
Dante.
As said, Dante thought the very centre of Earth, which in his sci fi book on theology / individual eschatology called Divine Comedy was reached by Virgil and Dante after going through the nine circles of Hell, was occupied by Satan, in whose mouth were Judas Ischariot, Cassius and Brutus.
Note that this is not one of the details in Dante's world view which Pope Benedict XV in 1921 even slightly indirectly questioned. Here is what he wrote, it is shorter than the Divine Comedy itself:
IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM
On Dante
Encyclical or Pope Benedict XV promulgated on April 30, 1921.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15summo.htm
Then Dante was not inventor of this thought, he merely voiced what was commonly accepted. Here is where St Thomas of Aquino deals with it:
Summa Theologica > Supplement
Question 69. Matters concerning the resurrection, and first of the place where souls are after death
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5069.htm
I answer that, Even as in bodies there is gravity or levity whereby they are borne to their own place which is the end of their movement, so in souls there is merit or demerit whereby they reach their reward or punishment, which are the ends of their deeds. Wherefore just as a body is conveyed at once to its place, by its gravity or levity, unless there be an obstacle, so too the soul, the bonds of the flesh being broken, whereby it was detained in the state of the way, receives at once its reward or punishment, unless there be an obstacle. Thus sometimes venial sin, though needing first of all to be cleansed, is an obstacle to the receiving of the reward; the result being that the reward is delayed. And since a place is assigned to souls in keeping with their reward or punishment, as soon as the soul is set free from the body it is either plunged into hell or soars to heaven, unless it be held back by some debt, for which its flight must needs be delayed until the soul is first of all cleansed. This truth is attested by the manifest authority of the canonical Scriptures and the doctrine of the holy Fathers; wherefore the contrary must be judged heretical as stated in Dial. iv, 25, and in De Eccl. Dogm. xlvi.
That was a quote from above link, if you scroll down to "Article 2" and within that to "I answer that". Note the words:
"And since a place is assigned to souls in keeping with their reward or punishment, as soon as the soul is set free from the body it is either plunged into hell or soars to heaven, unless it be held back by some debt, for which its flight must needs be delayed until the soul is first of all cleansed."
Soaring up or plunging down in a Geocentric universe mean above the stars, for Heaven, below, perhaps far below, Earth's surface, for Hell. - XGralgrathor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The diagram DID include"
Reread the comments.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Saying Hell is in the CENTRE of the globe is quite incompatible with Flat Earth Cosmology."
I'm not going to make fun of you. I'm not going to make fun of you. I'm not going to make fun of you.
O … yes I am going to make fun of you.
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Dante."
Of course. And what century did Dante live exactly? Do you know what else they believe in those times?
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"That was a quote from"
Really? That's nice.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "O ... yes I am going to make fun of you."
You can try.
"Of course. And what century did Dante live exactly?"
I think he lived past the year 1300, but I am pretty sure he was born before.
"Do you know what else they believe in those times?"
How about:
- a) Roman Catholicism (in Western Europe, including in such countries as have since become Protestant) ...
- b) the theology and philosophy of ... did I mention him perhaps? ... St Thomas from the town Aquino in Italy ...
- c) giving money to beggars as opposed to giving money to Salvation Army who give tea or coffee to beggars (and if they need to wash, a time at their laundry on a waiting list with two weeks) ...
- d) using marriage to make children (you know, the Duggars and Cukierskis are not quite extinct yet) ...
- e) and some more, but will that do for now?
Btw, just so you know it, not sure if you count it as making fun of you or as making fun of myself, here is at least (for now) up to my last comment:
Linking to this post
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2014/03/on-whereabouts-of-hell-fire-and-other.html
+XGralgrathor
as to rereading the comments, I think you need to reread mine if you want to have a clue. - a) Roman Catholicism (in Western Europe, including in such countries as have since become Protestant) ...
- Xixulon Gralgrathor
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't need to try, and you're doing all the hard work for me. Hell, you've even copied our comments to another blog!
"How about"
Okay, so obviously things like heliocentricity aren't all that important to you. Well, no matter, I'm sure you'll manage without.
"I think you need to reread mine"
Everytime I need to have a good laugh, I will, rest assured. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Heliocentricity is on the contrary very important to me - as a prime example of learned men gong wrong. I think that Tyson was right in claiming Bruno was pioneer (after very old ancients).
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Sometimes Luther Got it Right!
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/03/sometimes-luther-got-it-right.html
If you chuckle, I will not be offended.
* My introductory comment post was on a discussion having, beyond one seismological bifurcation, which the answers have not fully answered, nor yet left a total enigma, on another topic on a video called:
AronRa : Phylogeny Challenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU
Against or in answer to which I recommend two articles on CMI:
A baraminology tutorial with examples from the grasses (Poaceae)
by Todd Charles Wood
http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tutorial-with-examples-from-the-grasses-poaceae
and
Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors
by Russell Grigg
http://creation.com/stalins-ape-man-superwarriors
No comments:
Post a Comment