First comet found with ocean-like water: New clues to creation of Earth's oceans

October 5, 2011, University of Michigan

This is the comet Hartley, as imaged by NASA's EPOXI spacecraft. Credit: Image courtesy of NASA
(PhysOrg.com) -- New evidence supports the theory that comets delivered a significant portion of Earth's oceans, which scientists believe formed about 8 million years after the planet itself.

Astronomers have found a new cosmic source for the same kind of water that appeared on Earth billions of years ago and created the oceans. The findings may help explain how Earth's surface ended up covered in water.

New measurements from the Herschel Space Observatory show that comet Hartley 2, which comes from the distant Kuiper Belt, contains water with the same chemical signature as Earth's oceans. This remote region of the solar system, some 30 to 50 times as far away as the distance between Earth and the sun, is home to icy, rocky bodies including Pluto, other dwarf planets and innumerable comets.

"Our results with Herschel suggest that comets could have played a major role in bringing vast amounts of water to an early Earth," said Dariusz Lis, senior research associate in physics at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and co-author of a new paper in the journal Nature, published online today, Oct. 5. "This finding substantially expands the reservoir of Earth ocean-like water in the solar system to now include icy bodies originating in the Kuiper Belt."

Scientists theorize Earth started out hot and dry, so that water critical for life must have been delivered millions of years later by asteroid and comet impacts. Until now, none of the comets previously studied contained water like Earth's. However, Herschel's observations of Hartley 2, the first in-depth look at water in a comet from the Kuiper Belt, paint a different picture.

This illustration shows the locations of various classes of comets in the Solar System, relative to the orbits of the planets. The left panel shows the inner Solar System along with the orbit of Jupiter-Family comet Hartley 2. The central panel shows a larger portion of the Solar System beyond the orbit of Jupiter, as well as the Kuiper Belt, one of the two main reservoirs of comets in the solar system. The right panel shows the Oort Cloud, the other main reservoir of comets located well beyond the outer solar system. Credit: ESA/AOES Medialab

Herschel peered into the comet's coma, or thin, gaseous atmosphere. The coma develops as frozen materials inside a comet vaporize while on approach to the sun. This glowing envelope surrounds the comet's "icy dirtball"-like core and streams behind the object in a characteristic tail.

Herschel detected the signature of vaporized water in this coma and, to the surprise of the scientists, Hartley 2 possessed half as much "heavy water" as other comets analyzed to date. In heavy water, one of the two normal hydrogen atoms has been replaced by the heavy hydrogen isotope known as deuterium. The ratio between heavy water and light, or regular, water in Hartley 2 is the same as the water on Earth's surface. The amount of heavy water in a comet is related to the environment where the comet formed.

By tracking the path of Hartley 2 as it swoops into Earth's neighborhood in the inner solar system every six-and-a-`half years, astronomers know that it comes from the Kuiper Belt. The five comets besides Hartley 2 whose heavy-water-to-regular-water ratios have been obtained all come from an even more distant region in the solar system called the Oort Cloud. This swarm of bodies, 10,000 times farther afield than the Kuiper Belt, is the wellspring for most documented comets.

Using the Herschel Space Observatory, astronomers have discovered that comet Hartley 2 possesses a ratio of "heavy water" to light, or normal, water that matches what's found in Earth's oceans. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Given the higher ratios of heavy water seen in Oort Cloud comets compared to Earth's oceans, astronomers had concluded that the contribution by comets to Earth's total water volume stood at approximately 10 percent. Asteroids, which are found mostly in a band between Mars and Jupiter but occasionally stray into Earth's vicinity, looked like the major depositors. The new results, however, point to Kuiper Belt comets having performed a previously underappreciated service in bearing water to Earth.

How these objects ever came to possess the telltale oceanic water is puzzling. Astronomers had expected Kuiper Belt comets to have even more heavy water than Oort Cloud comets because the latter are thought to have formed closer to the sun than those in the Kuiper Belt. Therefore, Oort Cloud bodies should have had less frozen heavy water locked in them prior to their ejection to the fringes as the solar system evolved.

"Our study indicates that our understanding of the distribution of the lightest elements and their isotopes, as well as the dynamics of the early solar system, is incomplete," said co-author Geoffrey Blake, professor of planetary science and chemistry at Caltech. "In the early solar system, comets and asteroids must have been moving all over the place, and it appears that some of them crash-landed on our planet and made our oceans."

Explore further: Solar System Shield

Related Stories

Solar System Shield

January 14, 2010

Water vapor in planet-forming disks may block ultraviolet radiation from destroying water and other important molecules for life, according to new calculations.

Comet Hartley 2

June 15, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The comet Hartley 2 is a relatively small and elongated comet - only about 0.6 x 0.4 kilometers in size. It orbits the sun every 6.46 years, getting as close to it as 1.05 astronomical units (the Earth is ...

How water forms where Earth-like planets are born

December 17, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a study that helps to explain the origins of water on Earth, University of Michigan astronomers have found that water vapor can form spontaneously in habitable zones of solar systems, and that it develops ...

We owe it all to comets

April 28, 2009

Comets have always fascinated us. A mysterious appearance could symbolize God's displeasure or mean a sure failure in battle, at least for one side. Now Tel Aviv University justifies our fascination -- comets might have provided ...

Recommended for you

See a passing comet this Sunday

December 14, 2018

On Sunday, Dec. 16, the comet known as 46P/Wirtanen will make one of the 10 closest comet flybys of Earth in 70 years, and you may even be able to see it without a telescope.

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

On Nov. 26, NASA's InSight mission knew the spacecraft touched down within an 81-mile-long (130-kilometer-long) landing ellipse on Mars. Now, the team has pinpointed InSight's exact location using images from HiRISE, a powerful ...

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, 2018, tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show – the Geminids meteor shower—will ...

81 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

StillWind
1.4 / 5 (25) Oct 05, 2011
It is truly amazing how really ignorant the 'consensus" is on this subject. Especially since it has been shown repeatedly that comets do not contain a significant amount of water, and the idea that we gained our oceans through this process would require a bombardmnent such that the planet would never have survived, intact.
Peteri
4.4 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2011
The only problem I have with the theory that the comets delivered all of earth's water is that of just how many comets, even of fairly large size, would it take to provide all the water currently on the planet's surface (estimated to be 1.4087 billion cubic kilometres)? That's an awful lot of comets! [A rough back-of-the-envelope calculation yields about
one third of a million comets with a generous 20km diameter impacting with the early earth - is that plausible?]

I remember reading recently that geochemists had found that molten mantle rocks could in fact hold more water than had previously been expected. So this begs the question, was a significant proportion of the water on the planets surface the result of volcanic out-gassing? I suppose it's down to the isotopic D/H composition of volcanically out-gassed water compared to the cometary water!
Shootist
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 05, 2011
It is truly amazing how really ignorant the 'consensus" is on this subject. Especially since it has been shown repeatedly that comets do not contain a significant amount of water,


You wouldn't think the Earth's mantle would contain a lot of water. It does, about 1.5x the amount of the world's ocean.

It isn't just comets, it is all of the leftover bodies, some of which are entirely water. You have to realize that objects like Ceres, Europe, Ganymede, Enceladus and their smaller analogs, would have been far more common in the early Solar System?

You really underestimate the LHB, and it destroyed 500 million years of planetary surface evolution. What delivered the water probably made the LHB look tame, in comparison.

btw, how else would H2O get to Earth in any quantity?
Jotaf
4.7 / 5 (17) Oct 05, 2011
Peteri, actually 300 000 comets with an average diameter of 20km over several million years sounds entirely plausible for an early solar system scenario :)
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (23) Oct 05, 2011
So where did the comets get their water from? Were they bombarded too? You still have to determine the original source or water.

Even kids would ask this question.


What in the holy hell are all of you talking about? Water is composed of two of the MOST COMMON elements in the universe, it is likely naturally occurring all over the universe in large quantities just like any other form of matter... No one asks where meteors "got all that rock from"... so why the hell would you ask where a a comet "got all that water from"?

It is what it is... a meteor IS rock, a comet IS water (ice)... that is the definition of the thing. Where it came from is called chemistry, and where the hydrogen and oxygen came from is equivalent to asking for the origin of everything, good luck with that.
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (23) Oct 05, 2011
As an oxide of hydrogen, water is formed when hydrogen or hydrogen-containing compounds burn or react with oxygen or oxygen-containing compounds. Water is not a fuel, it is an end-product of the combustion of hydrogen.

Much of the universe's water is produced as a byproduct of star formation. When stars are born, their birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. When this outflow of material eventually impacts the surrounding gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water observed is quickly produced in this warm dense gas. On 22 July 2011, a report described the discovery of a gigantic cloud of water vapor, containing "140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined," around a quasar located 12 billion light years from Earth. According to the researchers, the "discovery shows that water has been prevalent in the universe for nearly its entire existence.
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (22) Oct 05, 2011
Cont'd...

Water has been detected in interstellar clouds within our galaxy, the Milky Way. Water probably exists in abundance in other galaxies, too, because its components, hydrogen and oxygen, are among the most abundant elements in the universe.

- Wikipedia
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (19) Oct 05, 2011
No one asks where meteors "got all that rock from"

Lots of people do. Maybe in your little world no one does. But all the physicists and astrophysicists I work with sure as hell do. Where did the material from the big bang come from. Just because you ask a question you do not like, does not mean the question does not deserved to be asked. Questions are the core of real science.


/facepalm

The question is COMPLETELY out of the scope of the contents of this article.

Yes, the question "where did matter/energy come from" is an important one, but it will not be answered here nor does it have ANYTHING to do with what this article is talking about.
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (17) Oct 05, 2011
So then if the comets got their water and rock from whatever, why could this rock called Earth, not have gotten its water the same way. Quote me more from wikipedia. Real smart.


I didn't say it couldn't have did I? ...

You don't work with astrophysicists, unless you're on the janitorial staff at a university...

You asked: "Where do comets get their water from, were they bombarded too?"

Your question was stupid, sorry. Water is naturally occurring in the universe as a byproduct of star formation, a "comet" is the form taken by naturally occurring water. Sorry for answering your stupid question.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 05, 2011
You work with astrophysicists but you ask if comets got their water by being bombarded by other comets :bowrofl:
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (18) Oct 05, 2011
So then if the comets got their water and rock from whatever, why could this rock called Earth, not have gotten its water the same way. Quote me more from wikipedia. Real smart.
Maybe you should just go and read Wikipedia yourself, instead of waiting for someone to quote it at you. Maybe then you could be "real smart" yourself. Here's a start that will answer your question, and probably others you were going to ask:

http://en.wikiped...r_System

Pay special attention to the "Formation of Planets" section.

Ignorance is not a good starting point for discussion. Come back when you know at least a bit about the subject matter.
bewertow
5 / 5 (14) Oct 05, 2011
So where did the comets get their water from? Were they bombarded too? You still have to determine the original source or water.

Even kids would ask this question.

Also look at the shape of this comet. Why would "gravity" form an object of this shape? There are clues if you just look.


What a n00b question. They even said in the article that comets come from the Kuiper Belt or Oort cloud, where the temperature was low enough during the solar system formation to allow volatile compounds like water to condense.
Shootist
4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2011
So where did the comets get their water from? Were they bombarded too? You still have to determine the original source or water.

Even kids would ask this question.

Also look at the shape of this comet. Why would "gravity" form an object of this shape? There are clues if you just look.


Primordial Hydrogen meets Oxygen created in various stars. 13.7 billion years is a very very long time.
Bob_Kob
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2011
Why couldnt water have originated on earth? We have plenty of hydrogen and oxygen rich compounds. Perhaps not in the right form, but maybe something freed them to create water.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (13) Oct 05, 2011
But all the physicists and astrophysicists I work with sure as hell do
So how does a Creationist work with them?

Where did the material from the big bang come from
It was energy to start with.

I have an answer for the first question. Highly speculative but still far better founded in reality then a god based on the nonsense in Genesis.

Math/logic, unlike a god, does not need anything to exist. A god needs logic/math, math/logic does not need a god. The question of why a universe came to exist really isn't the right question. The question is

Why shouldn't a universe exist if it is mathematically valid?

The key to the existence of our Universe is that the energy total may be zero. Matter, light, anti-matter and all that kind of stuff has positive energy BUT they all produce a gravity field that, mathematically anyway, has negative energy equal the matter that it goes with.

So why shouldn't it exist? Why insist on a creator that doesn't fit the evidence?

Ethelred
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2011
Right, a simpler way to say what Ethelred is saying that I often share with people is why they think the question of the origin of everything is even valid when we cannot identify a true origin of ANYTHING and such a concept violates the first law of thermodynamics right from the get-go.

The question is most likely a meaningless one. "Origin" is a human concept which comes from our unique tendency to classify and categorize. What I mean by that is the only things that we think have "origins" are simply classifications of arrangements of matter and energy. A toy originates from it's components in a toy shop, but a "toy" is just a classification for an arrangement of matter... before that matter was "a toy", it still existed in another form... the only thing that "originated" is the new classification of that matter based on it's assembled "toy" form.
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2011
The concept of "origin" likely has no meaning in physical reality... so it makes no sense to ask for the origin of reality itself.

If you consider the universe to be a subset of a larger set then the question of the origin of the universe may have meaning simply because the concept of "universe" is itself then merely a classification of an arrangement of matter and energy.

However, if you consider the universe to refer to all that exists then the question of the origin of the universe is probably a meaningless one.
ROBTHEGOB
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 06, 2011
There was never any "Big Bang". This is the biggest myth of contemporary science.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (24) Oct 06, 2011
Quite amusing how all the answers to where things come from seem so factual when they are all just first class speculation.
No one was there to document/record just how the universe came into being so anything we might say about the past is simply a lot of hot air.
I happen to choose to believe that the bible [as an eye-witness account from the creator to us humans] has it right about the creation: the earth was made out of and from water, hence the abundance of water on earth.

You might differ from me on that belief, but then please don't sell your belief off as being "the facts". You're just as clueless as the rest of us.
Shenlung
1 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2011
Who is to say that the "Big Bang" was the start of everything? Here's a theory for you, go ahead and disprove it; given that no one can disprove the big bang, God, or any of the other half-cooked theories floating around, this one has as much merit in my opine. (Cue "you're an idiot!" flame posts) The universe has no beginning. It was, then the supermassive black holes floating around out there slowly pull the expansion back into check and reverse it until everything flows back, everything condenses into a single point which (just an uneducated guess, anyone wanna chime in on the intricate workings of a black hole? preferably someone who has been to one and taken readings with their tricorder?) then goes critical and "big bang", thus spawning a few hundred trillion years of expansion and growth before the entire cycle occurs again?

This is the nature of THEORIES, they are guesses that scientists spend a LOT of time and money trying to find evidence for.
Shenlung
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2011
For the record, I think ALL religions are wrong, as are most scientists. Few hundred years ago, it was scientific "fact" the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and objects fell to the ground because some unseen god pulled them down... amazing how scientific "fact" changes over time, isn't it?

Give us a few decades, and half the "facts" in the realm of physics and quantum mechanics will be dis-proven and new ones will spring up to take their place.

Hold on to your seats folks, we've only been here for a few thousand years, and we've only been "tech-savvy" for a few hundred(if that), everything is going to change.
yyz
5 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2011
@kevinrtrs:

"I happen to choose to believe that the bible [as an eye-witness account from the creator to us humans]has it right about the creation" = "first class speculation"
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
"The universe has no beginning. It was, then the supermassive black holes floating around out there slowly pull the expansion back into check..."

How does a universe with no beginning expand? And where did those supermassive black holes come from?
Shenlung
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2011
@yyz

Expand, contract, explode, repeat. how is this a hard concept? and why does it have to have a beginning? The "beginning" as we know it would have been the last super-critical explosion, but this could have been occurring on a timescale so massive as to make tagging a beginning as something on the order of 10 to the nth power millennia past.

Add in all those crazy temporal anomalies that happen around light speed and in the gravity wells of black holes, and it could very well happen that each cycle effectively resets the idea of time back to zero, making every explosion "the beginning of the universe" in more aspects than one. Again, I simply offer it as a possibility, people all seem to want to speak of "the beginning" as if it HAS to exist, when there is no proof for or against the idea that the was no start.

Philosophical questions such as "Do we exist because the universe does, or does the universe exist because we do?" spring to mind, as does questions of reality...
Shenlung
2 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
All I'm saying is that discussing a beginning is as inane as (following religious logic here, bear with me) trying to prove the existence of god, a being which can only exist through faith, which is a belief without proof. Hitchhikers guide, gotta love it(and god disappeared in a flash of logic).

I have no education regarding the big bang theory outside of Hawkings "A Brief History of Time", and that was from 12 years ago; I have since then had a nasty incident involving a land mine and no longer retain memory very well, so forgive me if I'm a little off.

Given the idea that time is a measure of temporal quantity, which can be manipulated by high gravitational forces around a black hole, is it really a far stretch to think that the very fabric of space/time could be warped in a super-black hole to the point of effectively resetting the clock to zero?
Nanobanano
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2011
Ceres, Europe


Yeah, Ceres and Europa alone each contain far more water than is on the Earth. Europa has so much water that if you transported it all to Mars it would cover the entire planet to a depth of around 7 miles. Olympus Mons might be sticking out, but that's it...

Water on Earth could come from other places as well.

Proton emission and double proton emission from radioactive materials in the crust and mantle could produce vast quantities of Hydrogen, which could then react with Oxygen in the rocks, or dissolved in existing oceans, or in the atmosphere.

Because hydrogen is so reactive, it woudl get locked away in hydrocarbons, water, and HCL, etc, whilest helium from beta decay would escape the atmosphere, except in some traps in the ground rock...(we're talking long time scales, not days or weeks.)
Nanobanano
4 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2011
Expand, contract, explode, repeat. how is this a hard concept? and why does it have to have a beginning?


Because we know the universe is not contracting at all, and is actually accelerating it's expansion, and with absolutely no chance of contracting by any known force.

Entropy requires a beginning.

If the universe as we know it were eternal, you and I would not exist, nor would stars and planets, because everything would have exausted it's fuel source and Entropy would be maximized by now.
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
"Ceres and Europa alone each contain far more water than is on the Earth."

Do you have a citation?
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
"Ceres and Europa alone each contain far more water than is on the Earth."

Do you have a citation?


Don't need one.

Read Wikipedia article and calculate the volume of water on each of those objects vs the Earth.

Ok, well, I just gave you a citation then, Wikipedia "Ceres" and "Europa" and use some math and critical thinking.

"The volume of Europa's hydrosphere is2.3 times that of Earth."

http://en.wikiped...rosphere

So Europa alone contains enough water to easily support the water component of 2.3 Earth biospheres.

Nanobanano
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2011
And regarding Mars above, I'm actually wrong. There is more water than that on Europa. I was mis-remembering my calculations.

Europa has enough water that if you took away the existing water on Earth, and then added back the water from Europa, you would cover the entir EARTH to a depth of well over 7 miles above existing sea levels. It would actually be a coulple miles above Everest's summit...
yyz
3.8 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
With regards to Ceres, Wikipedia states "Ceres' oblateness is inconsistent with an undifferentiated body, which indicates that it consists of a rocky core overlain with an icy mantle.[8] This 100 km-thick mantle (23%28% of Ceres by mass; 50% by volume)[61] contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.[62]"

That's *fresh* water, you'll notice.

As for Europa, it is not composed purely of water. Your wiki reference is unsourced. Show your math for your assertion (this ought to be good).
aroc91
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2011
Quite amusing how all the answers to where things come from seem so factual when they are all just first class speculation.


I happen to choose to believe that the bible [as an eye-witness account from the creator to us humans] has it right about the creation: the earth was made out of and from water, hence the abundance of water on earth.


AHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA

PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2011
@kevinrtrs,
Quite amusing how all the answers to where things come from seem so factual when they are all just first class speculation.
No one was there to document/record just how the universe came into being so anything we might say about the past is simply a lot of hot air.
You are confusing THE beginning, vs. "where things come from".

When we talk of things like elemental abundances, or stars and planets, we don't need to discuss where the whole universe came from in order to DEDUCE, from OBSERVATIONAL DATA, how these elements and objects formed from their respective precursors. We can DEDUCE, from OBSERVATIONAL DATA, the state and content of the universe when it was very, very young -- almost all the way up to the very instant when it "came into being". And from there, we can DEDUCE how it evolved, and test our conclusions against OBSERVATIONS.

Even without any eye-witnesses, forensics can uncover what really happened. In a major way, science IS all about forensics.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2011
@Pirouette,
As each one consumes matter and energy, it grows larger until even distant matter and energy comes within its range of gravity and attraction.
That's not how it works. The mass of a black hole is exactly equal to the mass of matter/energy it has consumed. Outside the event horizon, the gravity well of a black hole behaves just like that of any other massive body. Far away from a black hole, orbiting entities feel no different than if they were orbiting a compact collection of non-black-hole massive objects with the same total mass as the black hole. The hole's "range of gravity and attraction" is exactly the same as (actually somewhat less than) that of its former self plus matter that used to orbit it before it was consumed. I say less because not all formerly-orbiting matter is consumed; some fraction typically gets expelled in relativistic polar jets or as radiation from the accretion disk.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2011
but the sphere of influence of the black hole enlarges due to the gravitational inward attraction of its event horizon
No, it does not.

And incidentally, the event horizon isn't actually anything special. It's just a certain radial distance from singularity past which light cannot escape the gravitational well. Other than that, there's actually nothing "there" at the event horizon, just your normal smoothly curving spacetime.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2011
Well, new future discoveries should prove whether either of us is right concerning said black hole.
There is no reason to suspect that Einstein's general theory of relativity is wrong about black holes. Indeed, if a black hole's gravitational pull was somehow different than the simple sum total of all the matter it consumed, we'd have a major violation of energy conservation laws. That's a big no-no in physics.

http://imagine.gs...12a.html
TehDog
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2011
When all the matter and energy is consumed within each galaxy, each massive black hole combines together with all others due to gravitational attraction until what was once a galaxy has become one super-sized black hole.

Meh, accidently gave this five stars. I feel ashamed :(
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
That;s weird. . .now they're back. lol
They were filtered for having too low a rating, turn of the filtering. Mainly because you are completely about black holes. Your profile says you want to learn. So start learning.

Water on a table is a two dimensional construct and the total area will be directly related to the total mass. Water in a sphere in space is a three dimensional construct and the total VOLUME will vary again vary directly with the mass. HOWEVER since the mass of the water spread out is the same as the mass concentrated the GRAVITY will be the same whether that water is spread across the entire diameter of the solar system or concentrated in as black hole at the center of the solar system.

What this means is that if we take ALL the matter in any solar system up to but not including the Oort Cloud and ram into a single point the orbit of the all the material in Oort Cloud we be completely unaffected barring the perturbations that large orbiting masses cause.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
This works the same even if we are talking about the center of a galaxy. Take all the matter in the hub of our galaxy and pack it into one supermassive black hole, by magic to avoid irradiating the entire out galaxy with gamma rays, and our Suns orbit around the galaxy would not change. Not in the short run of a few dozen obits of the galaxy anyway, at a billion years for every four, before the Sun leaves the main sequence.

Ethelred
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
As for Europa, it is not composed purely of water. Your wiki reference is unsourced. Show your math for your assertion (this ought to be good).


*sigh*

Earth hydrosphere is 1.4E21 liters.

Europa:

Outer layer 100km thick water and ice.

Radius of moon: 1569km.

Compute total volume (1569 radius) and subtract the volume of the non-water solid core (1469km radius) to get volume water.

R = (4/3)*(pi)*1569^3 = 16179214770 km cubed
r = (4/3)*(Pi)*1469^3 = 13278652225 km cubed

Now big number minus little number gives volume water:

R - r = 2900562545 km cubed = Europa's water

1 cubic kilomter is 1 TRILLION liters, so multiply by 1E12:

2.90056 E21 liters = Europa's water

Divide by Earth.

E21's cancel.

2.9 / 1.4 = 2.07...

So the citation from the article was off by a bit on the decimal places, however, they may not have counted some of Earth's water.

Also, Europa may have "wet rock" below the ice and water mantle which I have not counted.
Corwin573
1 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2011
and you guys act like this plane of existance is all there is.. our universe could be 1 of many... the reason we dont see contractions of the expansion of the universe, is because we never will(or maybe we will)... maybe our big bang was one of MANY... we still observe few gamma bursts with energy levels that calculated puts point of origin outside our known universe.. maybe that burst is another big bang happening in distances unconceivable and another universe is forming in our own space/time but at distances soo far that even light broken down to its lowest waveform never reaches us.. but im just an 8th grader soo, what do i know... seems to be as much as you adults... and thats not much(at this subject) =P
Onceler37
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
To the Christians, quit trying to convert everyone. Jesus said "Do not cast your pearls before swine" meaning be very selective to whom you spread the Word to. It was meant that you should have your own house set in order before you try and change someone else's. People are supposed to see you and your life as an example of how to be happy and blessed they gotta say hey I want what he has how do I start. Not to be the aholes who preach at everybody yet are on shakey moral ground themselves.
To the Atheists quit trying to stir s**t. If you don't believe than let it be at that and don't try to do the same exact thing that they are doing in converting everyone. On the other hand don't go out of your way to prove that there is no god, it is just as wrong to alter findings and abandon the Scientific Method just to prove one's belief/disbelief.

I am Christian yet I don't believe everything that is in the bible, for instance Job ,my God would never put one of His servants through all that.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
I am Christian yet I don't believe everything that is in the bible, for instance Job ,my God would never put one of His servants through all that


Interesting.

Don't be so sure.

I mean, the real God didn't show up to save people in Japan or Sumatra when they had their respective 9.0 to 9.3 megathrust earthquakes and tsunamis.

He sat there and watched it happen, and did nothing, just like in the story of Job. Men, women, children, christian, pagan, atheist; it made no difference, everyone died on the spot.

If you don't believe in the story of Job, you pretty much don't believe anything in the Bible, because several other authors cite the story of Job and the character of Job, as allegedly one of the 3 greatest people who ever lived. Now without the story of Job, the character would be unknown, and since the book is the only direct reference...

If the book of Job, the oldest book in the Bible, is not inspired or infallible, then where does that leave anybody?
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
If the book of Job is inspired and infallible, then God must not be as concerned about goodness or justice as the remainder of the Bible claims he is.

After all, the book starts with the author and "God" admitting that Job was a "PERFECT" man (better translation being "good",) who reverenced God and hated evil.

But it was God himself who pointed out Job to "Satan" and then basically told him to go get him, although not directly.

There 10 children killed (probably young adults based on context,) and all of his workers killed except one witness from each of the major disasters.

This is allegedly the same God who later proclaims, "The thief comes not but to kill, steal and destroy, but I am come that they might have life and have it more abundantly."

Yet Jesus himself later comes to steal, kill, and destroy anyway in Revelation and in Matthew 24 and it's sister passages, at least according to the Bible.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
How about Romans 13, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour."

But wait, was that, "God is love."

Erm...book of Job...book of revelation, "Die, all of you, hell even the innocent ones, eat it!!!"

Or how about this, "To know to do good and do it not is sin." and the parable of the good samaritan, God was NOT a neighbour to Job, as no good friend who was in any position to intervene would sit by and watch someone be destroyed and tortured the way the text alleges Job was done.

I guess I'd be considered a heretick in any "good" christian church, but I don't know what anyone who honestly examines the texts with objectivity is supposed to do.

Yet, as I said, the book of Job appears to give a more honest pourtrayal of God than any other book in the Bible.

Jesus does not show up to heal people or raise them from the dead.

WE know God definitely sits around doing nothing whilest watching Haiti get destroyed and 100k die in a 99 percent christian nation, not counting maimed.
Nanobanano
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2011
But you know something, you're absolutely wrong.

I cannot convert anyone anyway.

Yet there isn't one christian I've ever met in my life who honestly examines any of this stuff and admits that at least a significant portion of the existing Bible has got to be fraudulent at best.

If you think Job is bad, just read 1 Samuel. According to the author, "God" allegedly tells Samuel and Saul to go slaughter an entire city, including a bunch of kids and infants that had nothing to do with their parents alleged crimes.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2011
But you know, I can't actually say God is wrong in doing some of these modern disasters.

Consider these:

Why do so many "Christians" feel compelled to lie, and even make up false information, such as the Missing Day Theory Hoax?

Why are so many Christian false prophets, who have very orthodox beliefs, or bible literalist beliefs at their core, but they are false prophets, and not all of them are "false Christs".

Jim Jones (false christ, he allowed himself to be called God) and People's Temple

Heaven's Gate- false prophet, bible literalist

"The Great Disappointment" - false prophets, bible literalist.

I've personally met dozens of "minor" ones that nobody even knows about who are false prophets.

Almost everyone on TBN and INSP, probably including Joyce Meyere, and definitely Ken Kopeland, and the whole gang, are false prophets.

Most of the people who openly oppose them are themselves also false prophets, just in a different doctrine or denomination.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 08, 2011
The only problem I have with the theory that the comets delivered all of earth's water is that of just how many comets, even of fairly large size, would it take to provide all the water currently on the planet's surface (estimated to be 1.4087 billion cubic kilometres)?

I'd guess that before all the matter in the accretion disk that eventually formed the planets of the solar system was swept up by planets impacts should have been a lot more frequent than now. Also take into account the long time scales.

Add to that the the oceans are only a VERY thin layer of our planet (we're talking an average depth of 4km as opposed to a radius of the Earth of about 6350km. That's only about 0.06%).

Water naturally rising to the top through physical processes (less density) doesn't make it at all implausible to me that we should have the water we do.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2011
Then there was this other lunatic a few weeks ago, calling for the end of the world...with the audacity to set a date...

I think it's beyond delusional. In fact, I don't think they're delusional at all.

I think they know they are fakes, and they do it intentionally just to make a buck off people.

If there is such a place as Hell, Jim Jones is one of the most deserving bastards in the history of mankind; right up there with Hitler and Osama Bin Laden.

But why so many "Christians" who are habitual, "career" thieves, liars, and con men?

Perhaps the real God is not worshipped at all.

Perhaps the fakery of modern religion offends him so and people of all "faiths" are equally offensive.

If that's the case, the fakery of "christians" in Haiti is no different than the fakery of the taoists in Japan, or the other pagans in Burma or Indonesia who were wiped out by earthquakes and typhoons.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
Piroette:

I can tell you now that any person who claims to be able to keep the ten commandments is a liar.

Given the Bible's own interpretations of the definitions of adultery and coveting, everyone automatically fails those before you even start.

And Exodus is not free from it's history of "God" slaughtering the innocent and letting the guilty go free. Just look at the two massacres in Egypt.

God did not step in to protect the Israeli infants from the first Pharoah, and moreover, "God" later kills the first born in Egypt, the majority of which would have been innocent children who had no control over what was happening around them, but left the "guilty" adults alive.

How could anyone call that love? Justice?

That is the exact opposite of justice. Much like the book of Job, "God" punished the only innocent people involved in the whole damn story!

When you really examine that objectively, it's one of the most evil attrocities imaginable.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2011
But you can't keep the ten commandments.

Stop lying to yourself.

I spent my entire life trying to obey the Bible, and I found out you absolutely cannot do it no matter how hard you try and no matter how much you pray or whatever. It doesn't even help.

And Jesus and Paul's teachings turn out to be even harder than Moses.

According to Jesus anyway, or at least the disciple claiming to be recalling what Jesus said, if you so much as look at a woman and lust you're already guilty of adultery.

So I guess I got a couple ten thousand marks against me right there at this point in life.

But it gets better, according to Paul, we're not supposed to hang out with unbelievers, fornicators, or drunks. Well, let's see, that technically means I shouldn't be on this forum, because most of it's users are unbelievers. So I'm sinning just by being here.

Then pretty much everyone is a fornicator or a drunk or both.

So let's just throw everybody away and be done with the whole race.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2011
Then there's Astrology, which the Bible condemns in the Old Testament (though according to the author of the Book of Daniel, Daniel was the chief Astrologer and a Magician, yet elsewhere Daniel is never rebuked or condemned.) I've checked the concordance and it's the same related words.

But the point is, Astrology (studying stars and clouds for mystical signs, etc,) is forbidden, yet most modern people, including professing Christians, practise astrology.

Most professing Christians cannot name two books in the Bible, so they cannot possibly know anything about alleged theology or doctrine.

Nobody obeys the commandments.

You think anyone can?

I was in a room of 20 women one time, and every one of them was a "christian" and with 2 or 3 possible exceptions, they practically boast of their sexual exploits, premarital and extramarital, and the worst two in the bunch were in their respective church choirs!

Does EVERYBODY go to hell?

Maybe we do.

Who are you fooling?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
Then pretty much everyone is a fornicator or a drunk or both.
I don't drink.

If you believe in G-d, believe me, HE knows what's in your heart.
Why we should believe on that? For one thing it implies that there is a god to believe in and it is clear that you believe in a very odd god that can't stand you writing the word 'God'.

Everyone is in charge of the fate of their own soul
Only if people have a soul. Got evidence for one?

I think it's remarkable how the Earth has just a certain volume of water, both from natural volcanic chemistry and brought in by comets. . . .and no more.
It is remarkable that I poured some water in my glass and no more. No its not. The only thing remarkable your statement is how silly it is. The exact same statement could be said no matter how much water is here.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2011
We have just enough so that our land masses can support populations with fresh water and life forms in the seas.
Life evolved to fit the resources. When species overuse the resources they die out.

I also find it remarkable that for millions of years. . .as far as I know. . .
Do you find it remarkable that for millions of year it didn't happen to the dinosaurs?

comets laden with H20 slamming into the Earth, killing people and breaking things.
And you don't seem to have heard about the Tunguska event. Didn't kill many if any but it sure broke a lot of trees.

That was rather a lot of sentences that were remarkable only the insipid nature of the logic behind them.

'it is remarkable that my legs are just long enough to reach the ground.' That is pretty much the level of them.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
Job ,my God would never put one of His servants through all that.
How about the murder of all the first born in Egypt? The killing of almost all life via the Flood? If not those then why the rest? And if we Agnostics are going to hell for not believing then shouldn't Christians try to save us?

Yes I know that last has you coming and going but this is a SCIENCE site not a religion site. If you bring religion into it you are going to get questions that make you uncomfortable. If you want people to stop selling Jehovah on the site then say so without the religious platitudes. Especially such arrogant ones.

All the horrible things we go through is a test of obedience to His Commandments.
Jesus is alleged to have said a lot of things. Some that contradict that. Why do you believe that when he himself preached to anyone?>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
First of all. . .the Bible as well as the Jewish Torah is a history of the Jews.
More of a collection of myths and legends as even the parts that partially fit real history only PARTLY fit.

Christ is derived from Greek meaning savior).
I thought it was 'anointed'.

The Rabbi said that Genesis is allegorical and should not be held as fact.
Then why believe the rest? If not all the rest which parts do you believe and why? Exodus doesn't seem to fit history.

Another thing: have you ever considered that G-d has been, is, and always will be, TESTING mankind??
Have you stopped thinking that Jehovah is perfect? There is nothing to test if you know everything and you created it all perfectly. Testing is just apologetics for stuff that makes no sense.

All the horrible things we go through is a test of obedience to His Commandments.
And you know all this how? And why do you believe it? And I thought you said>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
All the horrible things we go through is a test of obedience to His Commandments.
Which in this context means you think we who disagree with your are swine. Thank you very much.

We are all part of the GREAT EXPERIMENT. . .if you can accept that.
You will believe pretty any crap you propose to patch over stuff that makes no sense.

Why believe stuff that MEN wrote, long ago, that often doesn't fit reality and has a god that, frankly, is, by any reasonable human standards. a psycho, as portrayed in Genesis and Exodus and other places in the Bible.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
Nanobanano
But you know, I can't actually say God is wrong in doing some of these modern disasters.
I can't either as the god of Genesis simply doesn't exist. And there is no evidence for any god. So why are you trying to deal with blame or wrong doing of a god UNLESS some exceedingly silly person claims that Jehovah is where morals come from and no one did that in this discussion.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
wondering if our researchers have ever found a large enough piece of a comet that has iron
Comets are mostly ice and no one has found a piece of one. They don't hit the Earth often and it is catastrophic when they do.

metal with cracks, pits and crevices that may have fused shut from the heat of entry into Earth's atmosphere
Those are meteorites and maybe.

within those pits and cracks, there may be H20 or H and O gases trapped within that may not have burst from the comet as steam upon entry
Very unlikely. The metallic meteorites came from bashed asteroids that were large enough to undergo melting of the core such that the metal content moved to the center. This should leave most of the water outside the metallic zone. After the asteroid got hot enough that gravity driven separation of elements it had to cool and then be wacked in a collision. Not going to be much water or gas in the metal after all that.

http://en.wikiped...eteorite

Ethelred
Peteri
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
Yet another interesting discussion thread that's rapidly degenerated into a mud-slinging debate about religion.

Can't you people step back for a moment and see just how pathetic and tediously parochial this is for the rest of us who are just interested in the science!
Ethelred
2 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2011
SO quit complaining and write something you think is relevant.

Ethelred
Peteri
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2011
Sigh! You'll see from the second post in this thread that I already have!
gareth_Ph
5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
I fail to see how anyone who visits this site can still be serious about religion. With the exception of fanatics who deny facts, religion is in general decline because most people in the developed world just aren't silly enough to swallow it anymore.
gareth_Ph
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2011
As for the original article (which hasn't been commented on for awhile , amidst the theological melee) it seems quite likely that some of Earth's water came from comets.
Impressive work really, detecting water composition over vast distances.
And positive signs for confirmation that water may be fairly abundant universally.
Tajul_Muluk
not rated yet Oct 09, 2011
the fact is religion is man creation...problem done and now u can understand.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
You seem quite convinced and certain in your vast knowledge of everything in the known Universe.
You seem quite convinced in your ignorance. I prefer to keep learning.

After all that, I don't see any further use for scientific or theological research since you know everything about anything anyway.
Knowing more than you does not constitute everything. Theological research isn't about reality. Science is why I come here. To learn things. Unfortunately a lot of the articles have a rather low information content.

Thank you for enlightening all the rest of us as to our failings and stupidity.
Stop being an ass and try learning. You made two posts in a row bitching that others were making posts you don't like BUT you did nothing in them to change things. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

O Wise One.
I never claimed to be wise. Just good at critical thinking.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2011
Without tolerance of views, we become barbarians and our human rights are violated
Nice thoughts. Now try putting them into practice.

I understand that the NASA has plans to some time in the future, send up astronauts to land on an asteroid.
Obama has proposed it without actually doing diddly to promote it.

d examine its icy contents before it swings by too closely to the Sun.
There is difficulty in matching the velocities with that much mass. HOWEVER

NASA Study Finds New Kind of Organics in Stardust Mission
http://stardust.j...dex.html

If you don't like people commenting on your religious posts then don't make them. Stick to the science but that will still get comments but perhaps you will exhibit more tolerance of those.

Ethelred
Ethelred
1.5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2011
seen that they were in answer to another person's views on religion
As have been mine. I didn't start the religion in this discussion. I never do that.

Your seeming impatience for the views of others smacks of bigotry
I am not the one that was doing that. I was pointing that YOU were complaining about others doing things YOU contributed to.

Again.

IF
YOU
DON'T
WANT
REPLIES
DON'T
POST

Now is that clear enough for you?

I am not the one complaining about people making general religious posts. The only ones I complain about are the hit and run posters and those that try to disguise what they are really doing. Dave57 did both of those.

I LIKE having rational discussion on religion or science or the confluence thereof.

Nano appears to have had a lapse into religious
Nano AKA Quantum Conundrum has religious issues that are often contradictory. He has been banned several times at least.

Ethelred
Yellowdart
2 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2011
As have been mine. I didn't start the religion in this discussion. I never do that.


Oh come now Ethelred, be honest, you do to. You did so on a discussion with me recently. Which you haven't replied to lately. I miss you :(

Sorry I've missed the fun here. But as to the article, asteroids contain ocean water, not because they brought it here, but because the asteroids are FROM here.

http://creationsc...ds2.html

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2011
Oh come now Ethelred, be honest, you do to.
I am being honest. I never start the discussions on religion. I contribute but do not start. Perhaps you are thinking of the many times I have called people out for a hidden religious agenda. Like Dogbert.

Which you haven't replied to lately. I miss you :(
I didn't start that one either. I see posts that are based on religion instead of science.

I may get around to it. I keep trying to get Oliver to respond.

but because the asteroids are FROM here.
I don't think asteroids come from a web site. I am pretty sure they have been around a bit longer than the web.

SUMMARY: The fountains of the great deep launched rocks as well as muddy water.
They would kill everyone on the Big Assed Boat.

Hydroplate Explanation.
REALLY SILLY. A continental racetrack created by an engineer that NEVER ran the numbers. Which kill everyone on the Ark. Brown puts his religion over his engineering.

Ethelred
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2011
COMETS bearing H20


Comets are just rogue asteroids in a sense. They are from the same source as well...Earth. Sorry for confusion. Asteroids contain H20, and they both (comets/asteroids) contain traces of organics. It looks remarkably like Earth, not because it brought those things here, but because it is FROM here. The Earth fragmented/exploded rock during the Flood.

Comets just don't orbit nearby the sun, so they maintain their frost so to speak.
Yellowdart
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
I am being honest. I never start the discussions on religion. I contribute but do not start.


This is a lie. You have done so. http://www.physor...ars.html

You were the first to spout the words religion and god. It's okay to bring it up, just be honest about it.

I see posts that are based on religion instead of science.


Well you started it. I'm always happy to try and answer your religious questions.

They would kill everyone on the Big Assed Boat.


Not at all. The mid atlantic ridge runs entirely around the Earth, but so long as you aren't over the top of it, the likely hood of damage is small.

I don't think asteroids come from a web site.


"here" implied Earth.

REALLY SILLY. A continental racetrack created by an engineer that NEVER ran the numbers. Which kill everyone on the Ark. Brown puts his religion over his engineering.


Really silly, you didn't read it before commenting.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2011
COMETS bearing H20


Comets are just rogue asteroids in a sense. They are from the same source as well...Earth. Sorry for confusion. Asteroids contain H20, and they both (comets/asteroids) contain traces of organics. It looks remarkably like Earth, not because it brought those things here, but because it is FROM here. The Earth fragmented/exploded rock during the Flood.

Comets just don't orbit nearby the sun, so they maintain their frost so to speak.


This is just stupidity beyond belief. I hate to be a member of a species that has individuals that are even capable of thinking like this.

The fictitious global flood that never happened and that there is no evidence for somehow launched millions of Texas sized chunks of Earth into space and out of the planets orbit...

Sweet Jesus indeed.
CHollman82
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
I mean, you can't have an understanding of science beyond the level of a 12 year old if you think that any natural process on this planet could launch trillions of tons of rock out of Earths orbit... The "asteroid" that originated on Earth and ended up at the fringe edge of the solar system would have had to have had a velocity of over 90,000 miles per hour. 25,000 miles per hour just to escape Earth's gravity and the rest to escape the suns to end up where the majority of known asteroids are.

You think your silly bullshit flood could launch a trillion ton rock from earth at nearly a hundred thousand miles per hour?

Are you completely batshit insane?

As we all know f = ma = mv^2.
force = 1 trillion tons * 100,000mph... you do the math and the conversions I'm tired and depressed, thanks yellowdart.
Yellowdart
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2011
Texas sized chunks of Earth


Doesn't matter the size if most of it is ice/water, the overall density and mass is pretty light.

Asteroids in the solar system make up a mass that is about .05% of the Earth. It's relatively, small, in comparison. About 1/2300th's of the Earth.

25,000 miles per hour just to escape Earth's gravity


Yes, and during the initial rupture, there was plenty of energy to generate over 420,000 miles/hr :)

You only need a bit over 115,00 miles/hr to put comets into near-parabolic retrograde orbits.

http://www.creati...es4.html

Part of the reason that is achievable is because supercritical water contains orders of magnitude more energy than jet fuel.

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2011
Comets are just rogue asteroids in a sense. They are from the same source as well.
No they aren't. Comets are from much farther out. Most have been from the hypothetical Oort Cloud. This one is from the Kuiper Belt. Asteroids are mostly from the area between Mars and Jupiter.

Asteroids contain H20,
Small amounts. The metallic ones don't have any.

contain traces of organics.
That is speculation so far. We don't have a comet sample.

but because it is FROM here.
No. Most of the comets we know the water makeup of are NOT from around here. That is why THIS one is so interesting.

The Earth fragmented/exploded rock during the Flood.
Which would have killed everyone on the Ark.

Here have a link. Unlike Dr. Brown someone else DID run the numbers.
http://mypage.dir...dro.html

This is a lie
Lying is for life and death and a good joke. You are neither.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2011
However YOU just told a fairy story. Kevin had the first post. Kevin rarely posts without using his religion. That was not one of those rare posts. Those are all about technology. I have even given him a five or two for his posts on technology. Kevin's post was purely religious. There is no more science in that post then in Hydroplate Nonsense.


You were the first to spout the words religion and god. It's okay to bring it up, just be honest about it.
Kevin was the first. He just avoided using those words. Then entire post was religious. So how about YOU be honest on this. The words 'religion' and 'god' are not the only sign of a religious post.

I pointed that out in the post you are lying about.
. Perhaps you are thinking of the many times I have called people out for a hidden religious agenda. Like Dogbert.
SEE RIGHT THERE. Hidden religious agenda. Only no one is fooled by Kevin on this. Except maybe you.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2011
Not at all. The mid atlantic ridge runs entirely around the Earth, but so long as you aren't over the top of it, the likely hood of damage is small.
See the link. The probability of being parboiled is Unity.

"here" implied Earth.
Which as likely as from a website. Which was what I was implying. It was a joke. See requirements for lying above.

Really silly, you didn't read it before commenting.
Really. I read Dr. Browns stuff a decade ago. I found that link a decade ago. I kept it for a decade.

I can't find a link to that old discussion but I do have one for Noah's Wide Beamed Wave Wallower as I called in the discussion. You have to login there if you want to follow this link.

http://forums.del...=30143.1

Posted to give you a clue about how long I have been discussing this stuff.

Ethelred
Paljor
not rated yet Oct 12, 2011
The comets got their water from the cooler region of the forming solar system. there must have been trillions of comets not all had to be big comets. the earth could have easily survived a small comet bombardment. It may have not even been a bombardment, after all the comets had 8 million years...
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2011
Yes, and during the initial rupture, there was plenty of energy to generate over 420,000 miles/hr :)


The amount of energy release you are talking about would boil the oceans and partially melt the crust, nothing would survive, especially not a giant wooden boat.

Your beliefs are childish and ridiculous. You should be ashamed of yourself for propagating such insanity.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2011
There are many cultures on Earth who retain a memory of a world-wide flood on Earth that affected their progenitors


For the vast majority of the history of humanity individuals would be COMPLETELY incapable of determining if a flood was global as opposed to local...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.