OMG! Are you an expert in EVERYTHING? :wallbang:
Most dense metal are that way because of the tightly packed crystals. Its also why metal bends instead of shattering. The crystal slide against eachother.
Crystal Cave
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
- Status
OMG! Are you an expert in EVERYTHING? :wallbang:
Most dense metal are that way because of the tightly packed crystals. Its also why metal bends instead of shattering. The crystal slide against eachother.
I was wondering if it was a giant geode. Are there other caves like this? Why is it so hot? And are they wearing the masks for breathing purposes or contamination purposes.
Did anyone here watch the special? (I forgot :shy
Didn't read the article all the way through, did you? It said that the cave was close to magma pockets.
How close? Are crystals still forming? Will the magma break through?
Hmmm...
Are you sure?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I wouldn't jump to calling it ridiculous.
I was reading about some element that can be formed into a lattice structure, and when you add hydrogen to it, it will actually accept more hydrogen into the space, than if the space were empty.
It had something to do with the way the hydrogen bonded to the element, or perhaps the way it was forced to alighn, somehow - I can't recall.
It was an article I was reading about hydrogen containment.
Can someone help me out with this one?
I can't recall exactly why it worked, but it did.
By adding this lattice structure, the containment tank held quite a bit more hydrogen than if the tank was empty.
Really fascinating article.
Anyway, the point is, if it is possible to hold more hydrogen by adding more stuff to a space, I would not jump to the conclusion that the total volume can not be increased by adding water to something.
Honestly, just read up on metals before you say anything else.
I'm not sure that scientists agree on how magma rises, or even how it is formed, but yes, it can rise and it can break through if it rises. Did you read the part about hydrothermal stuff coming up and making the crystals?
Liar.
Show me where i've denied the existence of Fusion.
Oh wait, that's right, you can't.
BECAUSE I HAVEN'T.
You're mis representing what i've said.
And the opposite is quite clearly implied by my posts.
What I have, however, stated is that there is insufficient evidence to support the idea of fusion occuring in the earths core.
There's a huge difference between what i've said, and what you're saying i've said.
Meanwhile, you keep chopping and changing between one of two or three models which suit your purpose, one of which requires subduction to be feasable, as it suits you, depending on the problem being addressed.
Right...
So then this isn't a Gold crystal:
And this isn't a copper crystal:
You're wrong.
Metals form crystals.
You do realize that every time we cast gold, we grow gold crystals?
You do realize that if you carry out a redox reaction that causes Gold to precipitate, you're growing crystals (a powder is just really small crystals).
With pleasure.
It was controversial back in the 20th century when human beings were even more ignorant and primitive than they are today. The physics has been confirmed by verifiable, repeatable experiments. You're simply ignorant of 21st century observation and science. But you're a fundamentalist so it's deliberate: http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/
Like I said, you're a fundamentalist: http://www.newscientist.com/article...ure-of-fusion-at-the-centreof-the-earth-.html
Scientific observation is meaningless to you unless it supports your outmoded 20th century religion.
Another deliberate lie. The word maybe is not a claim but noone ever expected you to be literate.
A star use energy? Heaven forbid.
Since when do you have a problem with the Earth doing something that stars can't? According to you the Earth maintains a constant size and mass which is something stars cannot do.
one_raven volume might be the wrong word, amount?
Oil mastery is trying to claim that the earth MAKES elements, it doesnt. There IS NO FUSSION IN THE EARTH. Its an iron core and that has been the same since the earth was being formed.
There is only 1 way to MAKE an element, thats by nuclear physics, the alcamists of the middle ages tried EVERYTHING to create gold and they failed, even NETWTON tried and failed.
I think what your talking about one raven is hydrogen bonds, this is how mineral salts (and other things) desolve. The negitive ion (the non metal cl- for example) is atracted to the more positive hydrogen atom and the positive ion (the METAL Na+) is atracted to the oxygen atom because its more positive. This is because the molecule is a POLOR molcule because the oxygen atoms have a much stronger "pull" on the electron they are sharing than the hydrogen atom does.
Oil mastery is trying to claim that the earth MAKES elements, it doesnt. There IS NO FUSSION IN THE EARTH. Its an iron core and that has been the same since the earth was being formed.
There is only 1 way to MAKE an element, thats by nuclear physics, the alcamists of the middle ages tried EVERYTHING to create gold and they failed, even NETWTON tried and failed.
I think what your talking about one raven is hydrogen bonds, this is how mineral salts (and other things) desolve. The negitive ion (the non metal cl- for example) is atracted to the more positive hydrogen atom and the positive ion (the METAL Na+) is atracted to the oxygen atom because its more positive. This is because the molecule is a POLOR molcule because the oxygen atoms have a much stronger "pull" on the electron they are sharing than the hydrogen atom does.
You're lying. That's not me denying the existence of fusion, but questioning the acceptance of Cold fusion. What you're doing is saying that because I question the existence of Unicorns, I deny the existence of 4 legged animals.
It's dishonest, and a logical fallacy.
One paper that suggests an experiemnt that's expected to be repeatedable does not make it controversial. It simply suggests a possible avenue of research that might be more reliable.
No I'm not, as I've already explained, there is at least one other (simnpler) explabation for the presence of this Helium-3, so citing an article (it's not even a paper, but a news report on a paper) that suggests another mechanism by which it might be possible to generate Helium-3 in the earth doesn't make it an absolute undeniable fact.
Besides, again we come back to the point that that very article posits that subduction is responsible for the transport of Deuterium into the earths mantle to make the cold fusion possible in the first place.
No subduction, no cold fusion.
Now you're just being rude and dishonest, but then, there's no surprise there.
Wrong again: http://www.newscientist.com/article...ure-of-fusion-at-the-centreof-the-earth-.html
Can you recommend a good brand of time machine so I can confirm your hypothesis?
The problem (of many) for you is it's not one paper. You think it's one paper because you're a liar, illiterate, willfully ignorant, and a fundamentalist religious extremist who is afraid of 21st century scientific observation and indeed science itself.
Pot - Kettle.
Did you, or did you not make this post:
Does the post or does the post not make a statement.
The post makes an implicit claim - that at the very least you consider it possible (therefore, you're claiming it is possible) that Gold is formed in the center of the earth.
Therefore, it is not me that is a liar here.
But then, no one expected you to be literate.
Fusion of Elements releases energy until you get to Nickle (for the same reason that fission of elements heavier then Iron produces energy).
The Fusion of Iron into heavier elements consumes more energy then it produces (leading to supernova).
Congratulations on twisting my words out of context once again, you lying hack.
Well done.
You don't know what maybe means either? No surprise.
You're right Trippy. All the scientists who disagree with your religious fundamentalism are lying to you.
You're right Trippy. All the scientists who disagree with your religious fundamentalism are lying to you.
When you have a mature argument to present that is more substantial then a thinly veiled personal attack, I'll be around.
- Status