The predictions of Walt Brown

Actually it isn't my theory. Still, all replies seem to focus on water. What about the sperconducting, carbon rich, stuff?

How about big enough to contain say, about 70% of the carbon needed to come up with all that we have on earth? (As you can see this sideline of ring/canopy is basically a fact finding mission.) Just tell me how high we need this baby. I can put'er there for you.

quote:

---

limestone is one of the best places to find marine fossils

---

Looks like I went out too far on a limb on this thread. But, since I'm here, would it not have some merit to look at a possible reason for this, as being that, as so much of the stuff was deposited, and being around flood time, it would naturally have a lot of fossilization opportunities. ?

quote:

---

No significant amount of any stuff can be added to the atmosphere in any form at any height without killing everything on Earth other than a few heat-resistant bacteria. The pressure at the Earth's surface would have to be increased by the weight of the stuff divided by the surface area of the Earth, and the temperature would have to be increased by whatever amount is needed to put the stuff in a vapor form.

---

I am coming to the conclusion personally, that under present conditions, a canopy is not really a serious liklihood. So, really, if there was a canopy, I would have to look for some things to have been different in a big way. Perhaps gravity, and magnetism and such. But, that will take some work, so I'll have to leave it go for now, thanks for helping in the process of elimination.
OK, now someone was going to have a go at walt's equations I gave the link for, regarding ccoling water so the continents could move over, still waiting. Also, I think it was Walt who mentioned the magnetic field of earth is weaker now than thousands of years ago, and is continuing to get less, is this part right?

OK. Confirmed then, we have some change to work with here.

OK. So you and Walt have a difference of opinion about how cool the water down there was, got it.

quote:

---

I can't find a good number for the temperature at that depth right now, but at 9.1 kilometers (5.6 miles) it's been measured at about 265C (509F) (in the KTB Borehole; see the "Temperature Profiles" figure and caption on page 21). That's only about half as deep as Walt proposes; at his 10 mile depth we could easily be talking in the vicinity of 500C (932F).

---

Are we depending on indirect evidence here, or have we gone down 10 miles in a real good cross section of the planet, so we can draw on solid, and wide samples. Why would mr Brown be so wrong looking down? I also wonder how sure we are about the center of the earth. I think they have this thing there that alters seismic waves that is though to 'point' one way or another, almost like a cone or pyramid or something. Of course we imagine it to be 'hotter than the sun', but I am just kinda testing here, to see if I can find a weakness in the chain of assumptions that lead us to that conclusion. I mean, they talk about cold fusion being superior, I think, so how about another model for our basement?

quote:

---

. But if you do, be sure and include a mechanism to heat rocks down to the deepest we've drilled yet, and then cool them from that point to Walt's mile-thick magically-supported cavern. And then heat them again to provide magma for volcanos.

---

If the continents did slide quickly, as Walt proposed, could not this give us a lot of heat down say, to around 15-20 miles ? If the extrapolations you mentioned that explain the stuff below that are very wrong, still, it would give us hot ones up here, no? If then the stsrting temperature for the water below was much more normal, perhaps the steamed hotdog type analogies are of no real value. Not that I say it is for sure all wrong, as you know, we'd have to have some evidence for saying that. If you say, well, how could the water get down there in the first place without getting hot? I would have to point out they got down there some thousand and a half years before the claimed parting of the continents. I think it was tacitly admitted it is more or less just extrapolation and theory beyond that distance involved here anyhow!?

If I had a nickel for every time they told me there were no white crows! Your line, 20 years ago, one of the first million times it was parroted like a borg, was a little funny. Perhaps you can update your attempted wise humor a little?

quote:

---

How could the extraploations be wrong?

---

Not all extraps are perfact, you know.
a few words from a post here ""Yeah, indirect evidence, mostly"
"If their measured temperature is too much lower than actual, the cement can set too soon. This can ruin a $20,000,000 well. The investors get upset over such things.
An extrapolation of those numbers has you ....."
Coragyps"
So, besides some heat down there, which was already talked about, what you got?

quote:

---

No, its your turn to explain why these extrapolations could be wrong

---

In the context of this thread, loosely based on ideas from Walt, I gave a possible cause already to where heat in the top area of the crust would be a result of this hydroplate sliding. Now I would expect that some may say, hey, we got seimic waves as well, etc. To which I or some other may say, well, this really works in my favor, etc. Since we are talking about the foundation of science almost, looking at this aspect, I expect overpowering, swift, and irrefutible responses. You know, how we know what happens under pressure and stuff.
So far, I have simple proposed Walt's mechanism of continental movement as an alternative source for heat.
We get down then to the heart, and crux of the matter here, the foundation stones, and the source for a lot of long age reasoning, as we get real low down.

Can you be more specific?

quote:

---

The conclusions from this diagnostic tell a number of things about the internal structure and nature of the earth.

---

Yes, such as, I believe that S waves don't go through the core, because they cannot pennetrate liquid. Now normally we think of hat liquid, However, for example, water is a liquid! Then, down ath the moho we note achange, etc. I don't dispute something is affecting waves, even that a liquid would be doing it. This is why I say, specifically, what is it about Walt's continental plates or whatever, that you see as different in affecting the waves? I don't simply discount science, after all, simply enjoy seeing where it goes wrong once in a while. No one says there are no seismic waves, or inner earth, or core, etc.

quote:

---

It has to take into account lab measurements of the properties of the materials too, of course.

---

This is good, no one got too uptight at another explanation for heat near the surface. Then waves were raised as something to look at. We still are looking at them, but it seems you already are raising the next line of defense! I like this.

[quote]The origin of the Earth's magnetic field is not
completely understood, but is thought to be associated with electrical currents produced by the coupling of
convective effects and rotation in the spinning liquid metallic outer core of iron and nickel. This mechanism is termed
the dynamo effect. "" the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself every million years or so
(the north and south magnetic poles switch). This is but one detail of the magnetic field that is not well understood. " http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/magnetic.html
So if we had it wrong on earth's center, you ask me what effect it would have on the magnetic field? Well, if we understood fully, even the magnetic field orgin, I suppose we might have a better chance at answering that. The same site says "magnetic fields are produced by the motion of electrical charges. " So it begs the other question, what things can accomplish this? Would you suggest only great heat?

quote:

---

OK, where is it? All you've posted so far is ungrounded speculation

---

I'm looking at the evidence, such as that we do have heat at least in the top area of earth. Such as waves that travel through the earth. In trying to determine if the evidence may have been interpreted wrong so far, regarding the center of earth. I haven't proposed any theories here. To get knowledge and understanding through discussion doesn't mean we can't test our assumptions and findings, as to why we think it is hot. If it is true, and well based, that should become evident even if one puts it under a little scrutiny. Why get mean about it? Must seismic waves affected a certain way as they go through the center of the earth mean it is hot? I couldn't dare say it doesn't mean that. I can see if our current explanations are the only ones, or the best ones. Same with the magnetic field, must our 'gyro' be in temperatures hotter than the sun down there?

quote:

---

There's a giant crystal buried deep within the Earth, at the very center, more than 3,000 miles down. It may sound like the
latest fantasy adventure game or a new Indiana Jones movie, but it happens to be what scientists discovered in 1995 with a
sophisticated computer model of Earth's inner core. This remarkable finding, which offers plausible solutions to some
perplexing geophysical puzzles, is transforming what Earth scientists think about the most remote part of our planet.

​

"To understand what's deep in the Earth is a great challenge," says geophysicist Lars Stixrude. "Drill holes go down only 12
kilometers, about 0.2 percent of the Earth's radius. Most of the planet is totally inaccessible to direct observation." What
scientists have pieced together comes primarily from seismic data....!
http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/cohen_stix.html

---