31–40 of 43 posts
Can we please stop calling humid rocks "ocean"? There is a word for that: aquifer.
Aquifer doesn't convey any sense of scale, and that's the important part in the article. "Scientists discover aquifer" wouldn't be interesting.
And I would like to say that "interesting" should be lower on the list of priority than "accurate" when it comes to headlines.
I wonder if this be related to the biblical flood story: on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. Genesis 7:11
There is however a lot of controversy around this theory.
Can we please stop calling humid rocks "ocean"? There is a word for that: aquifer.
In an aquifer you have something like wet sand or wet rocks, i.e. there is sand/rocks and the water is in the space between them.
In this case, the molecules of water are inside the crystal structure. It's almost like a chemical reaction instead of only some inert object getting wet.
An usual similar compound is Cooper Sulfate that is nice because it changes color. The anhydrous version is white and you can get it heating the normal version. The normal version is blue and it has 5 water molecules per each CuSO4. But it is not wet like wet sand/rocks, the water is trapped inside he crystals. I can't find a good link but there is more info in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper(II)_sulfate#Other_form_... there are some nice photos in https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=copper+sulfate+colo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aquifer doesn't convey any sense of scale, and that's the important part in the article. "Scientists discover aquifer" wouldn't be interesting.
"Scientists discover aquifer the size of the Pacific ocean" And I would like to say that "interesting" should be lower on the list of priority than "accurate" when it comes to headlines.
If you want strict accuracy without the sales element you need to go to a journal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the book get all the points for the things it gets right without getting points detracted for what it gets wrong?
We need to understand. We search for patterns. Not knowing is an ache that forces some to look and convinces others to stop looking.
However, we tend to be fine for the search for bullshit.
Discussed (not particularly well) at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7885641
> This image will give you more idea of how much water there is on the surface in terms of spherical volume. https://water.usgs.gov/edu/pictures/full-size/global-water-v... .
Is it possible that similar deposits of this rock ringwoodite are present in under the surface or in cores of other planets?
But I found in Google one interesting link: "Mars' Ocean May Have Descended Into the Mantle of the Planet" https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a14470646/m...
I wonder if this be related to the biblical flood story: on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. Genesis 7:11
Many translations do not talk about "windows" but about "floodgates". The authors of the bible were from a culture whose cosmology interpreted the blue sky as an ocean and believed it could be poured on the earth.
(Apparently we are of a culture that believes water molecules trapped in certain minerals constitutes an ‘ocean.’)
Another instance of the scientific community converging to a consensus congruent with the Genesis account of creation. Genesis 2:5-6 "the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth ... but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." Two other notable instances: the universe had a beginning (a Big Bang) and evolution occurred generally in the order described in Genesis 1 (nothing, plants,…
Why does the book get all the points for the things it gets right without getting points detracted for what it gets wrong?
