I wonder if this adds to the understanding of plate tectonics. Adds another dimension or is so far removed from the crust it has little bearing on them.
Indeed, but there have been many floods in the area. I think a lot of what is saved in writing and stories has some basis in fact. Sometimes I even wonder if tales of trolls (and similar creatures in various cultures) can be Neanderthals etc.
Many translations do not talk about "windows" but about "floodgates". The authors of the bible were from a culture whose cosmology interpreted the blue sky as an ocean and believed it could be poured on the earth.
The most interesting theory I read recently is that biblical flood referes to an event that happened 5600 BC, when melting ice from the last little ice age caused water from Medditerrain Sea to flood through Bosfor, significantly increasing the size of Black Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
There is however a lot of controversy around this theory.
I know it was mostly nonsense, but Jules Vernes’ Journey to the Center of the Earth enchanted me to no end and sent my mind imagining such undiscovered wonders, including, yes, oceans within massive caverns miles below the crust. That man was such an incredible, creative storyteller.
Absolutely, one of my all time favourites. It was so delightfully imaginative and yet knowing it was tied to the science of the era made for a completely new world view while reading it.
Another instance of the scientific community converging to a consensus congruent with the Genesis account of creation. Genesis 2:5-6 "the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth ... but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."
Two other notable instances: the universe had a beginning (a Big Bang) and evolution occurred generally in the order described in Genesis 1 (nothing, plants, water creatures, avians, land animals, humans).
An old story not transgressing truth (truths that are being progressively discovered in more detail) should not be easily ignored. Though it is indeed a story for a spiritual purpose, not one meant to match the contemporaneous description of observations. If it were, it would be outdated (or too ahead of the times to be understandable or acceptable at all).
The vagueness of the text and selection bias seem like more reasonable explanations of your observations, independently of the spiritual or ethical value of that particular work.
Scientists used to assume the bible was a historical document that told the truth. They (generally) stopped believing because a close examination of reality kept contradicting it.
Global flood covering all the land (no evidence, but it would leave evidence if it happened); the number of species that actually exist versus the described size of Noah’s Ark (ever been to a zoo? The bible describes the Ark as about the size of Berlin Zoo’s bird house); Luke chapter 2 says the census that makes Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem was when Quirinus was governor of Syria and Herod was king of Judea, but Herod died 9 years before Quirinus took the job (also the Romans didn’t require people to return to the place of their birth for a census, because that’s a really dumb thing to do); and the total lack of evidence for the events in Exodus, when they should’ve been really obvious in the records and graveyards.
There are others, but I’m not a biblical scholar and don’t care enough to look closer.
I had a theory that the reason glaciers can melt, but the ocean doesn't rise is because the land is floating on water.
Much like a melting ice cube in a glass of water won't raise the level in the glass.
This is BIG news. (Pun intended)
The real thing is even more different than an ocean.
In an aquifer you have something like wet sand or wet rocks, i.e. there is sand/rocks and the water is in the space between them.
In this case, the molecules of water are inside the crystal structure. It's almost like a chemical reaction instead of only some inert object getting wet.
An usual similar compound is Cooper Sulfate that is nice because it changes color. The anhydrous version is white and you can get it heating the normal version. The normal version is blue and it has 5 water molecules per each CuSO4. But it is not wet like wet sand/rocks, the water is trapped inside he crystals. I can't find a good link but there is more info in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Other_form_... there are some nice photos in https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=copper+sulfate+colo...
It's quite logical, if there were small rocks with water hitting later Earth then those small rocks with water must have hit early Earth as well; thus water was part of Earth from the beginning and it simply got entrapped when Earth grew.
It's sad to see so much hate in the comments. It would be amazing if there were more discussions with genuine curiosity rather than a dismissive attitude of intellectual superiority. Unfortunately words can only express so much.
Fascinating discovery by the way. Makes me realize how much there always is to learn and discover despite how much we already know.
IANAG. Probably yes because the elements in these rocks are quite common, but I guess the difficult part is guessing how much water these rocks are trapping in each planet.
42 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 81.1 ms ] thread> This image will give you more idea of how much water there is on the surface in terms of spherical volume. https://water.usgs.gov/edu/pictures/full-size/global-water-v... .
<quote> on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. </quote> Genesis 7:11
Genesis is a collection of myths.
Which one is the myth-iest in your opinion?
(Apparently we are of a culture that believes water molecules trapped in certain minerals constitutes an ‘ocean.’)
There is however a lot of controversy around this theory.
Two other notable instances: the universe had a beginning (a Big Bang) and evolution occurred generally in the order described in Genesis 1 (nothing, plants, water creatures, avians, land animals, humans).
An old story not transgressing truth (truths that are being progressively discovered in more detail) should not be easily ignored. Though it is indeed a story for a spiritual purpose, not one meant to match the contemporaneous description of observations. If it were, it would be outdated (or too ahead of the times to be understandable or acceptable at all).
Not knowing is an ache that forces some to look and convinces others to stop looking.
However, we tend to be fine for the search for bullshit.
Here's the first example I found from a quick Google search:
> The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
Global flood covering all the land (no evidence, but it would leave evidence if it happened); the number of species that actually exist versus the described size of Noah’s Ark (ever been to a zoo? The bible describes the Ark as about the size of Berlin Zoo’s bird house); Luke chapter 2 says the census that makes Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem was when Quirinus was governor of Syria and Herod was king of Judea, but Herod died 9 years before Quirinus took the job (also the Romans didn’t require people to return to the place of their birth for a census, because that’s a really dumb thing to do); and the total lack of evidence for the events in Exodus, when they should’ve been really obvious in the records and graveyards.
There are others, but I’m not a biblical scholar and don’t care enough to look closer.
There is a word for that: aquifer.
And I would like to say that "interesting" should be lower on the list of priority than "accurate" when it comes to headlines.
If you want strict accuracy without the sales element you need to go to a journal.
In an aquifer you have something like wet sand or wet rocks, i.e. there is sand/rocks and the water is in the space between them.
In this case, the molecules of water are inside the crystal structure. It's almost like a chemical reaction instead of only some inert object getting wet.
An usual similar compound is Cooper Sulfate that is nice because it changes color. The anhydrous version is white and you can get it heating the normal version. The normal version is blue and it has 5 water molecules per each CuSO4. But it is not wet like wet sand/rocks, the water is trapped inside he crystals. I can't find a good link but there is more info in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Other_form_... there are some nice photos in https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=copper+sulfate+colo...
Fascinating discovery by the way. Makes me realize how much there always is to learn and discover despite how much we already know.
But I found in Google one interesting link: "Mars' Ocean May Have Descended Into the Mantle of the Planet" https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a14470646/m...