PDA

View Full Version : Granite formed overnight on Earth:& on the planets?



Dunash
2002-Feb-19, 12:07 PM
http://www.rense.com/general20/graniteAL.htm

2002-Feb-19, 01:07 PM
<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..

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-19, 02:05 PM
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.



It may very well be true that swirling gases were the starting point for planetary formation, but this poses major problems. First, what could cause gases in space to swirl in this manner? Gases can swirl on the Earth where they are held together in an atmosphere, but in the vacuum of space, they would simply scatter and become tremendously dilute. Gases have strong kinetic energy, and molecules of gas repel each other strongly. 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.


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.



"Quite often when casting steel ingots, a regular hollow is formed in the ingot if the metal is poured too hot. This is technically called "piping." This condition only occurs when cooling metal from a molten state, and occurs because in building up to the outside crust all material has been drawn from the center, leaving it hollow."


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?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-19, 02:05 PM
O no, HUb', I see you've contributed an internal link (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=615&forum=1&1#20020219.6:33) to this discussion!



On 2002-02-19 07:07, Dunash wrote:
http://www.rense.com/general20/graniteAL.htm

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.

Chip
2002-Feb-19, 04:40 PM
On 2002-02-19 07:07, Dunash wrote:
http://www.rense.com/general20/graniteAL.htm


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. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

aurorae
2002-Feb-19, 06:17 PM
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.


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.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-19, 06:37 PM
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.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Feb-19, 08:43 PM
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,


Churchwood appeared to lay the groundwork for a reasonable scheme of planetary formation.

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. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

One astronomical question about this: while, for reasons that regular readers here might guess /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif 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

Simon
2002-Feb-19, 09:37 PM
...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. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif 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?

Jigsaw
2002-Feb-20, 02:40 AM
One guy's opinion, FWIW.
http://www.science.org.au/nova/019/taylor.htm


This leads me to think that the whole crust of Mars is essentially composed of basalt and there are very few rocks present in the form of 'granite' or 'andesite'.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Feb-20, 10:20 PM
On 2002-02-19 21:40, Jigsaw wrote:
One guy's opinion, FWIW.
http://www.science.org.au/nova/019/taylor.htm


This leads me to think that the whole crust of Mars is essentially composed of basalt and there are very few rocks present in the form of 'granite' or 'andesite'.

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

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-21, 09:50 AM
On 2002-02-20 17:20, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
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.

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.


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

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.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Feb-22, 01:01 AM
On 2002-02-21 04:50, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
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.

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


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.

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. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif 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. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

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.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

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

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-22, 01:17 AM
On 2002-02-21 20:01, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
There was more than one great story that came out of some of those field trips, too.

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.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Feb-22, 10:44 AM
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.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-22, 11:47 AM
On 2002-02-22 05:44, ChallegedChimp wrote:
(I haven't figured out the quote dealie on this page yet)

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 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#bbcode) 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.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Feb-22, 12:57 PM
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 /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

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>

aurorae
2002-Feb-22, 03:57 PM
On 2002-02-22 07:57, ChallegedChimp wrote:
So we got plate tectonics, but no answer as to why it works?


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.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Feb-22, 09:41 PM
On 2002-02-22 07:57, ChallegedChimp wrote:
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.

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. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif 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. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif



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 plateful of stuff to figure out throughout our lifespan as a species /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

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

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Feb-22, 09:46 PM
On 2002-02-22 10:57, aurorae wrote:
In general, just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is magic.

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

The (not logically, anyhow) Curtmudgeon

DStahl
2002-Feb-23, 06:13 AM
Until something is explained you can't rule out magic? Hmmm! One might be tempted to reply that unless magic can be proven to exist it is a limp explanation for anything.

Back to things astronomical: One might suppose that volcanoes have magma chambers, the magma in extinct volcanoes can cool into granite, Mars has extinct volcanoes, and therefore Mars has (possibly) granite under some volcanoes. But I suppose we just can't take that for granite.

--Don Stahl

David Simmons
2002-Feb-23, 12:27 PM
On 2002-02-22 16:46, The Curtmudgeon wrote:


On 2002-02-22 10:57, aurorae wrote:
In general, just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is magic.

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

The (not logically, anyhow) Curtmudgeon


Logic isn't the be all and end all. Magic isn't the only thing that isn't ruled out by logic prior to an explanation. Nothing is ruled out by logic prior to an exlanation.

In order to stay within the realm of science, one must use the scientific method. This rules out, by definition, the use of magic as an explanation.

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Feb-25, 10:21 PM
On 2002-02-23 01:13, DStahl wrote:
Until something is explained you can't rule out magic? Hmmm! One might be tempted to reply that unless magic can be proven to exist it is a limp explanation for anything.


On 2002-02-23 07:27, David Simmons wrote:
In order to stay within the realm of science, one must use the scientific method. This rules out, by definition, the use of magic as an explanation.


Reel 'em in slowly....slowly....play 'em a little....

The (gone fishin') Curtmudgeon

roidspop
2002-Mar-24, 06:23 AM
Reel 'em in slowly...

I've been caught up in a long correspondence with a Jan Lamprecht enthusiast and I'm thoroughly enjoying BA and the nice, reasonable, very well-informed and funny posters in contrast.

First,with regard to instant granite and such, I know that some of these fringe folk troll for all they are worth, and of course some are just innocent bait fish and know no better. Does anyone have useful techniques for sorting out the two? How can you tell that you've been hooked and are being reeled in slowly and played with? I have this uneasy feeling...

Then there was the argument Gould offered in his book to the effect that creation stories which invoked a snap of God's fingers to create all of history and cosmology up to a certain point, whereupon "reality" takes over, are useless because they can never be tested. They may be absolutely correct, but we could never know. With the instant granite crowd, at least they're specifying oddities in the radiation halos produced by radioactive minerals. Any good take on this argument and how it is best debated?

lpetrich
2002-Mar-24, 08:33 AM
I don't see how the rate that granite can form can possibly indicate anything about the Earth's age.

For example, the Earth has something like 100 recognized impact craters on its (surviving) surface, and each one of these took a few seconds to form -- at most. So do they mean that the Earth was only a few seconds old?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-24, 08:50 AM
On 2002-03-24 01:23, roidspop wrote:
I'm thoroughly enjoying BA and the nice, reasonable, very well-informed and funny posters
I like that description nearly as well as "pack of weirdos (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=633&forum=9&start=25#post200203051504)".

As to your question, you have to know what you're doing. That's all. Learn as much as you can. That's the trick to it.

How do you know when you're wasting your time? Ah, that's a different question. I think I wasted a huge amount of my life studying abstract number theory. Still, somehow, it comes in helpful, every so often. But my point is, the people who are experts at number theory are definitely not cranks. They're just mildly delusional.

roidspop
2002-Mar-25, 04:23 AM
What I have found:

"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks--the granites--are beautiful
microspheres of coloration produced by the radioactive decay of
primordial
polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence. A simple
analogy
shows, on one hand, how these polonium microspheres--or
halos--contradict the
evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over
millions of years. On the other hand, it demonstrates how these halos
provide
unambiguous evidence of an almost instantaneous creation of granites and
the
young age of the earth: A speck of polonium in molten rock can be
compared with
an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of
effervescence
is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive
particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles
would
disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the
water
were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise,
polonium halos
could have formed only if specks of polonium had been instantly encased
in
solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded
in
granites around the world. Just as the frozen bubbles would be clear
evidence
of quick-freezing of water, so are polonium halos undeniable evidence
that many
rapidly "effervescing" specks of created polonium interacted with a sea
of
primordial matter which was directly "frozen" as solid granite. The
occurrence
of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was
formed in
a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of
creation."

DStahl
2002-Mar-25, 06:10 AM
Interesting! Thanks for quoting the bit about the polonium decay halos. Here's a quote in return:

"The formation of granite by replacement of solid rocks means that Gentry's theory is no longer tenable. He can no longer legitimately say that Po-halo-bearing granites must form by supernatural means. Solid diorite and gabbro rock, which had previously crystallized from magma, has been subjected to repeated cataclasis and recrystallization. This has happened without melting; and the cataclasis provided openings for the introduction of uranium-bearing fluids and for the modification of these rocks to granite by silication and cation deletion."

"In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos."

Reference: POLONIUM HALOS AND MYRMEKITE IN PEGMATITE AND GRANITE (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm), Lorence Collins.

The full page explains the polonium idea very well, and Collins describes field tests of his explanation of the halos.

--Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-03-25 01:11 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Mar-25, 01:07 PM
Talkorigins.org on polonium halos (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html)

2002-Mar-25, 01:10 PM
On 2002-03-25 08:07, ToSeek wrote: To:HUb'.7:01 A.M.
Talkorigins.org on polonium halos (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html)


Permission hereby granted to copy and dissem
...
now your gettin some where
perhaps to the very issue itself