Pre-flood physics?

When looking at the pressurized water erupting its awesome, in that water to my impressionis not able to be compressed into stone its only pressurized water, interestingly in the study of crustal fluid mechanics in the study of earthquake mechanism, its its ability of water to remain a liquid under extreme pressure that is being studied in the super deep russian kola well(hydraulics), but yes when this water under extreme pressure, moved from a liquid to steam suddenly, lateral from under the techtonic plates, it eroded the granite mantle to the east and west of the mid-ocean ridges, and this weight removed caused the mallable basalt to subduct up, causing the mid-ocean ridges to rise, but the water heat supersonically rises, and where it was cooled in the vacuums of the upper atmosphere, returning to the earth as snow, rain, buffering the thermal shock, so the fish were able to survive, and that too, is interesting, in that its known that the salinity of the fish is similar to the salinity of the sea water, and not the fresh water, meaning of course that if it never rained before the flood, the pre flood oceans were already saline, more in line with what the fish salinity is, and that they simply adapted to the freshwater hydrologic cycle after the flood, like you know natural selection, adapting by water osmosis, to maintain their saline fluid chemistry, etc...
P.S. My sister would love you all, she teaches grammar, never learned proper punctuation, use comma's to separate thoughts, and to condense whatever I'm writing, etc...

Deep water is always liquid, except in a few geothermal areas like the Imperial Valley in California where it's very hot close to surface. And deep water is always found in the pores or fractures of rocks, except for a very few caves with open water inside. The deep Oklahoma wells produce from rocks that give up their gas and water with more reluctance than the concrete of your sidewalk would - and a liter of rock would hold less water than the concrete, too. Brown's babblings about water beneath Tibet fail to mention that the water may make up 1% of the rock volume, may well be chemically bound, and is at 800 F or hotter. Giving up its heat to what, exactly? A vacuum? How does that work?Are you a troll, whatever?

Actually, it's known that the "salinity" of freshwater organisms is that of fresh water, and such organisms die in water that has significant salt (but less than the oceans). It's also known that the "salinity" of marine organisms is that of the ocean, and such organisms die if there's less salt (but more than in fresh water). In other words, all water-dwelling organisms would die in a world-wide flood. One of the menay reasons why such a flood never happened.Your writing style makes you appear very ignorant. The content of your writing makes you appear even more ignorant. If you want to be taken seriously, if you want to discuss rather than preach, clean up your act. Not intended as an insult, just an observation.

Where are these foundational granites - ocean or continent? Also, granite does not turn into sedimentary rock via heat or pressure, either - that's a metamorphic rock.I have heard a little of the theory that granites/gneiss underlay oceanic basalt, but that is highly controversial. Besides, I don't understand how that supports your position.Permanent magnets?Also, I believe you are wrong about the lack of dating of oceanic material. I believe the Ocean Drilling Project and others have dated and calibrated/correlated magnetic reversals on the ocean floor.

whatever responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:

quote:

---

The bible itself agrees with you that the waters of the ocean have been bound, or presently due to the topography after the flood, its impossible for the oceans to cover the earth, etc.

---

Not just "after." Before and during, too.It is topologically impossible to flood the earth using only the water on the earth when one starts with the existence of dry land and essentially all the water below that level.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I think your right it was converted to metamorphic rock, not sedimentary rock, however, when I searched the internet, could not find where they dated the different magnetic reversals, only an island here and there, nor could I find where they drilled over 105 feet into the basalt ocean floor, I realize the ocean is too deep to drill through the basalt layers, though until they do, they can not say that the granite foundational rocks are not under the basalt lava flows, on the continents we have these granite foundational rocks, their is no reason to believe they do not exist under the basalt ocean floor.
P.S. I'm not a scientists, but accused of preaching, however, when I saw of the magnetic reversals it brought to mind the permanent magnets that I had laying around, so I tried to lay 3 permanent magnets side by side, its impossible, meaning too me, when the lavas flowed out across the ocean floor covering the granites, the iron in the basalt orintated much like my permanent magnets, to lay permanent magnets side by side you will find the same magnetic reversal phenomenom, meaning of course you can lay your permanent magnets side by side, if you reverse the poles.[This message has been edited by whatever, 12-22-2003]

You asked how this supersonic steam erupting laterally out from under the granite mantle could lose its heat in the vacuums of the upper atmosphere, In the book of Revelations it talks of the atmosphere being rolled back, were talking of a whole lot of ash coming up from the cavitation of the granite and basalt rock, likely how God cause the windows of heaven(water canopy) to be opened, even today we need dust to cause a raindrop, in the formation of the 45,000 miles plus basalt under the ocean mountain range, the sediment blasted out with the waters was deposited all across the earth, from what I heard it averages over 1 mile in depth across the entire planet, as evidenced in the Grand Canyon, Hudson Canyon, Amazon Canyon, etc... with all the ash being blown up into the upper atmosphere laterally, as the super sonic steam cooled it returned to the earth as rain, snow, etc...its not all that uncommon for whitesquall, macro-down bursts, micro-down bursts when hot humid air is rising, or along along a storm front, however, think most asteroids likely consists of water, and from my point of thinking, when God caused our sun to shine only 13,000 years ago(core harmonics evidencing it a very young star), the waters on Mars, the moons, etc...because of gravity escaped too, thus I don't personally think all the water based asteroids came from the Genesis World Flood, but where the lateral blasting of water became more a vertical blast, don't see why some rocks were not launched into outer space, etc...even today they don't understand in totality what happened in the tungsla explosion in the early 1900's, but even here they feel that the atmosphere rolled back, what I feel likely happened when God caused the fountains of the deep to erupt, as we all know there is a lot of water down under the earth, filling the fractured rock, don't think Walt Brown thought up the water under the earth, its like biblical, and many scientist feel that mars has evidence it too, has waters, seas, likely water is under ground, and the oceans of water that escaped contributed to the asteroid belt. If one looks at Europa, one of the moons of our solar system, it is an icy world, meaning that the however, the planets were created in the beginning, they didn't come into being as a molten piece of rock, the reason there are scientists that believe there is more water under the oceans in the inner earth that exists within the oceans themselves. If the earth was formed as a molten piece of rock, no water should exists down below the granite mantle, challenging the perceived molten rock planet formation theory to be flawed.

No asteroids consist of water - asteroids are rocky or metallic. Comets are largely water, but it didn't come from Earth - the deuterium content is completely different.
And if asteroids had been launched from Earth, all of their orbits would intersect Earth's orbit, and we'd be getting hit by them all the time.
Brown is utterly full of crap - he makes all that nonsense up.

I don't think age-dating oceanic crust is too common, but I do believe the Ocean Drilling Program has dated some cores - try searching on their website (sorry, don't have time to do this myself). Also, there are a lot of papers on the correlation of biostratigraphy, stratigraphy, and age-dated terrestrial basalts with oceanic basalts that also constrain the ages of polarity chrons.Turning to oceanic crust drilling, the Ocean Drilling Program has certainly drilled deeper than 105'. In fact, they have gone as far as 2.1 km (6,500+ feet) and possibly further. Last I heard, the deepest oil exploration hole in the ocean was about 3 km (9,800+ feet). I don't know if that still stands, however. See the following links for some deep holes. talk of going 4,600 deep (Sept 2003 press release) Hole 504B: penetrates 2,111 meters of oceanic crust (year???)I understand why you think the magnetic reversals wouldn't work, but I can assure you, scientists have considered and solved the question you have, as well as many others. Check out these sites for some info on magnetic reversals: reversals and tectonics - check out the other links for more information.also from the USGSThere is a lot of info on the web about this. Take a look around.

GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Helioseismology does not evidence the Sun as a young star. You are referring there to data first taken back in the early 1970's and people not understanding that data. This was in the infancy of helioseismology.There are NO water based asteroids, period.oops I saw the name Walt Brown in your post. Really don't need to read anything more then - he is a buffoon.

roxrkool, I put those sites on my favorites to check out later, if I find a phone number of someone in the know, too me, it would be worth a phone call, when I did my last search on the topic, it was over a year ago, what I remember was after drilling through sediment of however many thousand feet, they ran into basalt and they quit drilling 105 feet into the basalt, however, any information that would prove they drilled 4,000 feet into the basalt, away from the mid-ocean ridges, on the oceans floor, as we all know that Walt Brown believes only basalt would be found in this area near the mid-ocean ridges, due to the sediment erosion of the granite mantle by cavitation forces, etc...
P.S. It would be also interesting if they have core samples of the basalt across the ocean floor, to confirm the geologic theory that the basalt ocean floor has been spreading over 200 + millions of years, think what they will find, is that this is a myth, but I'm open to scientific evidence to support or disprove the geologic theory that the techtonic plates are spreading, though it seems too me that Walt Brown hydroplate theory seems more viable(that they are floating), that the granite under the basalt crushed under the continents, that its not a simple slip fault, the reason California probably will never slip into the ocean (fractured fountains of the deep), etc... even so I'll probably enjoy checking out your sites, after Christmas.

Eta_Carinae, I would assume that they are more into the study of the sun, since the russian scientist finding were confirmed by the british scientists, although core harmonics, don't believe its changed, the core of the sun gives off the same harmonics that its core density is evidence of a very young star, think due to the closeness of the sun they are also studying the outer surface higher occilations harmonics, and other things like them neutrinoes in coal mines, though all these other things doesn't change the core harmonics, etc...the sun gives off light particles and leaves the dense particles behind, is not this what the density of the core is all about, white dwarfs, etc...
P.S. Is not the core harmonics occilations what they are using to study other stars in the known universe, all we can say is the sun is a very young star, I realize to the evolution people tends to exagerate when it come to the age of the sun, like moon rocks that dated 5 billion years old, doesn't mean the sun was a star, 5 billion years ago, all we know is that God created the heaven in the beginning and if the sun was 5 billion years old a star its core harmonics should be a whole lot deeper, and should be giving off a whole lot more neutrinoes, etc...

With basalt at an average of 184 lb/cubic foot and granite at 165, how, exactly, does the former float on the latter? And, by the way, plate tectonics *depends* on the fact that the plates float on the mantle. Walt didn't think up anything new there.

Whatever, have you yet responded to what anyone has said to you? If you can't do that then you may as well stop posting as very soon now you will start to be ignored.If you have responded then I'm sorry for having missed it and would be interested in having you point it out.

Please, whatever, get some new sources of misinformation. Even Answers in Genesis has given up on "the Solar Neutrino Problem," seeing as how it was fully explained two or three years ago - there is no shortfall of neutrinos from the Sun. And, as Eta has told you, you are relying on outdated, incorrect data for your helioseismology.